3 ms·
I've heard there was a logical reason for this (in jaynes' probability book) but i've never gotten around to checking it out. >The equations also reproduce a m
by Herring 16y ago
I've heard there was a logical reason for this (in jaynes' probability book) but i've never gotten around to checking it out.
>The equations also reproduce a more complicated phenomenon, divergence of opinions. One might expect that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general concensus. On the contrary, we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized into two opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view. Probability theory as logic shows how two persons, given the same information, may have their opinions driven in opposite directions by it, and what must be done to avoid this.
- ajb 16y agoJaynes argument is roughly as follows: Consider how you would react to being shown evidence of, eg ESP or faith healing. I (for example) simply have a weaker prior belief in the possibility of faith healing than the possibility of being convincingly lied to. So being shown evidence of faith healing makes me very suspicious rather than causing me to believe in it. This is rational (given the my prior belief weighting).