5 ms·
>"This prior probability represents how plausible the hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerations other than the observational and experimental evidenc
by nonbel 9y ago
>"This prior probability represents how plausible the hypothesis is supposed to be based on considerations other than the observational and experimental evidence (e.g., perhaps due to relevant plausibility arguments)."
I guess I don't know about how "Bayesian logicism" differs from "Bayesian probability", but this is totally false in the latter case. The prior is just supposed to be independent of the current data (eg devised before it was collected). In practice info almost always leaks into the prior + model via tinkering. That is why a priori predictions are so important to proving you are onto something.
- westurner 9y agoBayesian logicism is the logic derived from Bayesian probability. Magic numbers are an anti-pattern: which constants are what and why should be justified OR it should be shown that a non-expert-biased form converges regardless.
- nonbel 9y agoThe use of the term prior probability in that paragraph is not consistent with its use in bayesian probability, so something is wrong. Also, I am not sure what magic numbers you are referring to.
- westurner 9y agoArbitrary priors are magic numbers. Is there a frequentist statistic that can be used in a deterministic function to determine which arbitrary priors to use?