fortyeridania comments on A List of Nuances - LessWrong

31 Post author: abramdemski 10 November 2014 05:02AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (24)

Comments (24)

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

Comment author: fortyeridania 12 November 2014 05:50:06AM *  1 point [-]

Yes, this in an interesting issue. One unusual (at least, I have not seen anyone advocate it seriously elsewhere) perspective is that mentioned by Tyler Cowen here. The gist is that in Bayesian terms, the fact that someone thought an issue was important enough to lie about is evidence that their claim is correct.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 November 2014 09:10:01PM 1 point [-]

The gist is that in Bayesian terms, the fact that someone thought an issue was important enough to lie about is evidence that their claim is correct.

Or their position on the issue could be motivated by some other issue you don't even know is on their agenda.

Or...pretty much anything.

Comment author: CCC 12 November 2014 09:24:48AM 1 point [-]

Hmmm. It's better evidence that they want you to believe the claim is correct.

For example, I might cherry-pick evidence to suggest that anyone who gives me $1 is significantly less likely to be killed by a crocodile. I don't believe that myself, but it is to my advantage that you believe it, because then I am likely to get $1.

Comment author: Jiro 12 November 2014 07:47:04PM 0 points [-]

Someone points out in the comments to that:

The Bayesian point only stands if the P(ClimateGate | AGW) > P(ClimateGate | ~AGW). That is the only way you can revise your prior upwards in light of ClimateGate

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit