From: Peter de Blanc (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 15:42:05 MDT
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:05 -0600, brannen wrote:
> It has been decades, literally, since I read Jaynes but, IIRC, the
> argument starts with the inferential fallacy 'absence of evidence
> being evidence of absence' and goes downhill from there.
Just a quick note: for a Bayesian, absence of evidence *is* evidence of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT