Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014

NancyLebovitz

You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

And, while this is an accidental exception, future open threads should start on Mondays until further notice.

You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

And, while this is an accidental exception, future open threads should start on Mondays until further notice.

I did dispute that:

My calculation addresses a major part of the Bayesian calculation...that sharply limits how much could ever be inferred from observing [Roberts] dying.

I wouldn't call it "major" because (1) you refuse to assign a probability to an event I stated I thought was likely; and (2) the main point of your calculation was pretty non-controversial and even without a calculation I doubt anyone would seriously dispute it.

Let's do this: Is there anything I stated with which you disagree? If so, please quote it. TIA.

I wouldn't call it "major" because (1) you refuse to assign a probability to an event I stated I thought was likely;

It puts an upper bound as I said. Plug the specific conditional I calculated into Bayes theorem and see what happens. Or look at a special case: suppose conditional on the diet not being harmful, Roberts had a 50% chance of dying before 80; now, what is the maximal amount in terms of odds or decibels or whatever that you could ever update your prior upon observing Roberts's death assuming the worsened diet risk is >50%? Is thi... (read more)