This is on everyone’s short list of problems with Bayes. In the simplest interpretation of Bayes, old evidence has zero confirming power. If evidence E was on t

This is on everyone’s short list of problems with Bayes. In the simplest interpretation of Bayes, old evidence has zero confirming power. If evidence E was on the books long ago and it suddenly comes to light that H entails E, no change in the value of H follows. This seems odd – to most outsiders anyway. I don't understand what he's referring to here. If we now know that H entails E, then that means our model of the world changed, and thus our posterior on H changed as well. Did I miss anything? It's an interesting article, but there is a lot of debate around the interpretation of Bayesian inference, and IMO there are answers to be found. In particular, Andrew Gelman argues against the subjective interpretation: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/philosophy_online4.pdf http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/phil... It's the best article I've read on the subject.