= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on [Link]: KIC 8462852, aka WTF star, "the most mysterious star in our galaxy", ETI candidate, etc. - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (43)
The probability that any specific observation is caused by aliens is so heavily influenced by priors/models that it's more interesting to consider conditionals such as P(aliens caused WTF | aliens exist) or P(WTF observations | aliens caused WTF).
What is your own probability estimate? I am not sure I can accurately distinguish between below 1/100,000 and between 1/10,000 and 1/100,000. With probabilities this small I am not sure that any estimate is useful
Another way of saying "below 1/100,000 chance of aliens" is "above 99.999% chance of natural causes". That seams awefully certain of the unlikelyness of aliens. I'm pretty sure it's not aliens, but I'm not that confident. I'd happily lose a dollar in that bet, if someone wanted to wager $100,000 against it.
it would tell you how much more evidence you would need to begin taking it seriously. That said, agree that it's not very useful.
Can you put in an "I'd just like to see the results" option?
My guess is somewhere between .2% and 2%, depending on how many stars have actually been examined, a figure I don't know.