From: Peter de Blanc (peter.deblanc@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2006 - 12:32:32 MDT
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 08:25 -0700, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Hmmm... IMO, the latter statement is pretty silly...
>
> I have never met a scientist who did not accept Bayes Theorem as a
> piece of mathematics.
>
> The argument between Bayesian and other approaches to uncertain
> inference and statistical modeling is not about whether Bayes Theorem
> is true or not, but rather about which heuristic assumptions one
> should make when applying this and other probabilistic mathematics to
> the real world. Classicial statistics makes one set of heuristic
> assumptions, conventional Bayesian statistics makes another ...
> alternate approaches like Walley's imprecise probabilities or NARS
> make yet other assumptions.... I happen to find some of these
> assumption-sets preferable to others, but that's another story..
Okay, maybe I was being a bit sensationalist. I should instead have said
that the Bayesian philosophy of science is not part of the scientific
consensus.
What heuristic assumptions do you think Bayesian statistics make?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT