64 ms·

> but if you don't know either, then describing yourself as a Bayesian is just putting on airs. The more charitable, and arguable more correct, interpretation

> but if you don't know either, then describing yourself as a Bayesian is just putting on airs. The more charitable, and arguable more correct, interpretation is that there are (at least) two related but distinct meanings of 'Bayesian' being used. One is referencing Bayes' Rule and some of its implications; the other an entire sub-field of statistics. I'm guessing there isn't much overlap between the two groups of people. It also certainly doesn't seem impossible to be, e.g. "an expert on classical literature but [not] know how to read greek/latin". Surely there's a lot to know about classical literature that isn't strictly pertinent to the actual vocabulary or grammar of ancient Greek or Latin. Or are you claiming that there's only one right way, or only certain right ways, for someone to augment their primary expertise with ancillary knowledge? I haven't previously encountered the idea that being a polymath implied expertise in numerous areas, just knowledge, tho presumably more than most laypeople.

pacaro 9y ago
The challenge with the classics example is that if you aren't capable of translating yourself then you are dependent on other peoples translations and therefore their interpretations, so you are adding a layer of indirection, sometimes more than one. My Latin is woefully poor, but armed with a grammar and dictionary I can make a stab. Just doing that shows me just how much interpretation happens.
- arstin 9y ago
  I doubt anyone would disagree "the world's foremost authorities" on classical lit need to know greek/latin. But carefully reading and comparing several translations while following centuries of commentary can surely make one an expert on, say, themes in Greek epic poetry. I mean, if it doesn't then I'd just want to introduce into our conversation a distinction or two in the area of "knowledge use" and just stipulate which branch I'm intending by "expert"... (This doesn't really matter for the previous point, but I actually think this just follows from agreeing with you and then taking even more seriously "how much interpretation happens".)

pacaro 9y ago

The challenge with the classics example is that if you aren't capable of translating yourself then you are dependent on other peoples translations and therefore their interpretations, so you are adding a layer of indirection, sometimes more than one. My Latin is woefully poor, but armed with a grammar and dictionary I can make a stab. Just doing that shows me just how much interpretation happens.

arstin 9y ago
I doubt anyone would disagree "the world's foremost authorities" on classical lit need to know greek/latin. But carefully reading and comparing several translations while following centuries of commentary can surely make one an expert on, say, themes in Greek epic poetry. I mean, if it doesn't then I'd just want to introduce into our conversation a distinction or two in the area of "knowledge use" and just stipulate which branch I'm intending by "expert"... (This doesn't really matter for the previous point, but I actually think this just follows from agreeing with you and then taking even more seriously "how much interpretation happens".)