**From:** Christian L. (*n95lundc@hotmail.com*)

**Date:** Fri Aug 30 2002 - 08:56:08 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Metarationality (was: JOIN: Alden Streeter)"**Previous message:**Gordon Worley: "Re: Metarationality (was: JOIN: Alden Streeter)"**Maybe in reply to:**Christian L.: "Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ben wrote:

*>
*

*>Eliezer wrote:
*

*> > Heh. Well, I am not alone in holding the BPT in very high esteem.
*

*>There
*

*> > is a small but growing movement in science to replace the Popperian view
*

*> > of proof with a Bayesian view, and you will often find "Bayesian
*

*> > rationalist" used as a more precise synonym for "rationalist", so it's
*

*>not
*

*> > just me.
*

*>
*

*>Of course, you are correct here, Eliezer. "Bayesianism" is a philosophy of
*

*>applied modeling which has quite a few true believers. I'm surprised that
*

*>Christian has not encountered it before...
*

Yes, it was a curious blind spot on my part. I will check out the links in

your mail. I sometimes come across people who have made sweeping

generalizations about mathematics without really knowing any math at all, so

I guess that Eliezer's poetic tribute triggered some kind of memetic immune

response.

*>
*

*>Bayesian analysis doesn't simply refer to the use of Bayes Theorem, it is a
*

*>particular style of statistical modeling, involving a host of theorems and
*

*>algorithms building on Bayes rule in a practical data analysis context.
*

Bayes' Theorem supposes that we have a universal set U which is subdivided

into disjunct subsets H_1, ..., H_n. Then, given an event A,

the probability of H_i when A has happened, P(H_i | A), can be calculated as

P(H_i | A) = P(H_i)*P(A | H_i) / (\sum_j P(H_j)*P(A | H_j))

What I have heard, the controversy that sometimes arises out of the use of

this theorem is due to the fact that the probabilities P(H_j) are often very

difficult to calculate, so you can distort your data by setting the

probabilities P(H_j) in a sloppy fashion.

Am I correct in saying that the different Bayesian philosophies are

concerned with methods of setting these probabilities (are these the

"priors" you discuss?) in a careful way? Or is this too simplistic?

Maybe we are getting off topic here...

/Christian

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Metarationality (was: JOIN: Alden Streeter)"**Previous message:**Gordon Worley: "Re: Metarationality (was: JOIN: Alden Streeter)"**Maybe in reply to:**Christian L.: "Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Bayesian Pop Quiz"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT
*