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.

buybuydandavis comments on Help with Bayesian priors - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: WikiLogicOrg 14 August 2016 10:24AM

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

Comments (26)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 15 August 2016 01:21:32AM *  0 points [-]

I don't recall Jaynes discussing it much. Anyone?

For him, I think the reference class is always the context of your problem. Use all information available.

A brief google for "jaynes reference class" turned up his paper on The Well Posed Problem.

http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/well.pdf

He analyzes the Bertrand Paradox, and finds that in the real world, the mathematical "paradox" is resolved by identifying the transformation group (and thereby prior) that in reality is applicable.

My take on this is that "non-informative priors" and "principle of indifference" are huge misnomers. Priors are assertions of information, of transformation groups or equivalence classes believed appropriate to the problem. If your prior is "gee I don't know and don't care", then you're just making shit up.

Comment author: WikiLogicOrg 24 August 2016 02:26:50PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the links and info. I actually missed this last time around, so cannot comment much more until i get a chance to research Jaynes and read that link.