I don't think it's a good idea to use B in settings other than statistical inference, or probability puzzles.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean that Bayesianism is inappropriate for situations where the data points are arguments and explanations rather than quantifiable measurements or the like? Do you mean that it shouldn't be used to prefer one person's argument over another's?
In any case, could you elaborate on this point? I haven't read through much of the Sequences yet (I'm waiting for the book version to come out), but my impression was that using Bayesian-type approaches outside of purely statistical situations is a large part of what they are about.
Arguing with people is an exercise in xenoanthropology, not an exercise in B.
Not sure I understand this. Assuming you're both trying to approach the truth, arguing with others is a chance to get additional evidence you might not have noticed before. That's both xenoanthropology and Bayesianism.
my impression was that using Bayesian-type approaches outside of purely statistical situations is a large part of what they are about.
Yes. I disagree.
Do you mean that it shouldn't be used to prefer one person's argument over another's?
Look at our good friend Scott Alexander dissecting arguments. How much actual B does he use? Usually just pointing out basic innumeracy is enough "oh you are off by a few orders of magnitude" (but that's not B, that's just being numerate, e.g. being able to add numbers, etc.)
...Assuming you're both trying
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Previous Open Thread
Next Open Thread
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.