You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Azathoth123 comments on Using Bayes to dismiss fringe phenomena - Less Wrong Discussion

1 [deleted] 05 October 2014 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (39)

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Azathoth123 08 October 2014 11:51:16PM 1 point [-]

What if we have n observations where P( observation | ~UAP ) through investigation has been found to be 0

Um, I don't think you understand what it means for P( observation | ~UAP ) to equal 0. If P( observation | ~UAP ) were really 0, then a single such observation would be enough to comclude the P(UAP) is 1.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 October 2014 08:34:10AM 0 points [-]

So how should one interpret findings like this: "We investigated n observations and out of these there were k observations which had sufficient observation data to rule out all known aerial phenomena as being the cause".

So that would imply that P(UAP) is pretty much 1?

So what remains is "merely" to determine what lies in this set 'UAP' as it could pretty much be anything.

Comment author: Azathoth123 10 October 2014 02:05:28AM 1 point [-]

So how should one interpret findings like this: "We investigated n observations and out of these there were k observations which had sufficient observation data to rule out all known aerial phenomena as being the cause".

If I take that statement at face value it means the observations were caused by some unknown phenomenon. Therefore, unknown phenomena of this type exist.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit