5 ms·

Bayesian attempts to give probability empirical meaning [do not] make sense in these types of one off situations, though. I agreed with your comment until this

Bayesian attempts to give probability empirical meaning [do not] make sense in these types of one off situations, though. I agreed with your comment until this. What do you mean?

nanis 8y ago
Either John wrote the song or Paul did. Therefore P(Paul wrote it) either one or zero. It cannot be anything else. We do not know which one and we are not going to find out by counting or doing arithmetic. After listening to the song one more time, and reading the article again, I've updated my beliefs that this senior lecturer in Stats fancies himself some kind of cool guy, and is trying to make name for himself by immersing himself in the study of women's beach volleyball[1] and Beatles. Also, it sounds to me like this something Paul would have written. Now, can you please explain what it means to calculate that P(Paul wrote it) = 0.018? Note that I am not asking about how the calculations work. [1]: http://www.glicko.net/ http://www.glicko.net/
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Either John wrote the song or Paul did. Therefore P(Paul wrote it) either one or zero. That’s not how Bayesian probability works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17742927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17742927 By your logic, every proposition is either true or false, and therefore the concept of probability is useless. Now, can you please explain what it means to calculate that P(Paul wrote it) = 0.018? That depends on their model, which I’m not necessarily defending.
  - nanis 8y ago
    > By your logic, every proposition is either true or false, and therefore the concept of probability is useless. That would be nonsensical interpretation of my logic. In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future, a "degree of belief" interpretation is appealing. If the answer were going to be revealed objectively and someone were taking bets, sure, fine, I'll go along with that. But, don't make an appeal to the Dutch book argument in a unique one-off case where no one has anything at stake other than free publicity which they have chosen to pursue by counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future That's just the thing: Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. But, don't make an appeal to the Dutch book argument in a unique one-off case where no one has anything at stake other than free publicity which they have chosen to pursue by counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff. ??? The Dutch book argument shows that rational people must have subjective probabilities which behave according to the axioms of probability. I don't see the relevance of your statement here at all, particularly the bits about "anything at stake" and "free publicity". And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"?
      - nanis 8y ago
        > Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. I am saying something different, but this seems like a futile discussion. What does it mean to have P(Paul wrote it) equal to some number in (0,1)? Let's call that number q. Explain what q means in words. If the truth were ever going to be revealed, or if I could conceive of the experiment being repeated in the future, I could explain it as "I would be willing to pay up to $q to buy an asset that pays $1 if Paul wrote it and $0 otherwise." > And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"? I mean it is very hard for me to take a person seriously who is doing a whole bunch of interviews without even a working paper somewhere. It seems that if you use some arithmetic, people are inclined to accept what you did without questioning whether it makes sense to apply such models in this case. > The Dutch book argument shows that rational people ... You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I don’t object to your comments about the absence of a working paper. You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means. You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. Do you have any reason for this, or is it just a baseless accusation?

Bayesian attempts to give probability empirical meaning [do not] make sense in these types of one off situations, though. I agreed with your comment until this. What do you mean?

nanis 8y ago

Either John wrote the song or Paul did. Therefore P(Paul wrote it) either one or zero. It cannot be anything else. We do not know which one and we are not going to find out by counting or doing arithmetic. After listening to the song one more time, and reading the article again, I've updated my beliefs that this senior lecturer in Stats fancies himself some kind of cool guy, and is trying to make name for himself by immersing himself in the study of women's beach volleyball[1] and Beatles. Also, it sounds to me like this something Paul would have written. Now, can you please explain what it means to calculate that P(Paul wrote it) = 0.018? Note that I am not asking about how the calculations work. [1]: http://www.glicko.net/ http://www.glicko.net/

antidesitter 8y ago
Either John wrote the song or Paul did. Therefore P(Paul wrote it) either one or zero. That’s not how Bayesian probability works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17743049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17742927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17742927 By your logic, every proposition is either true or false, and therefore the concept of probability is useless. Now, can you please explain what it means to calculate that P(Paul wrote it) = 0.018? That depends on their model, which I’m not necessarily defending.
- nanis 8y ago
  > By your logic, every proposition is either true or false, and therefore the concept of probability is useless. That would be nonsensical interpretation of my logic. In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future, a "degree of belief" interpretation is appealing. If the answer were going to be revealed objectively and someone were taking bets, sure, fine, I'll go along with that. But, don't make an appeal to the Dutch book argument in a unique one-off case where no one has anything at stake other than free publicity which they have chosen to pursue by counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    In cases where it is possible to conceive of an experiment being repeated in the future That's just the thing: Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. But, don't make an appeal to the Dutch book argument in a unique one-off case where no one has anything at stake other than free publicity which they have chosen to pursue by counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff. ??? The Dutch book argument shows that rational people must have subjective probabilities which behave according to the axioms of probability. I don't see the relevance of your statement here at all, particularly the bits about "anything at stake" and "free publicity". And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"?
    - nanis 8y ago
      > Bayesian probability is emphatically not about an experiment being repeated in the future. That's the frequentist interpretation of probability. I am saying something different, but this seems like a futile discussion. What does it mean to have P(Paul wrote it) equal to some number in (0,1)? Let's call that number q. Explain what q means in words. If the truth were ever going to be revealed, or if I could conceive of the experiment being repeated in the future, I could explain it as "I would be willing to pay up to $q to buy an asset that pays $1 if Paul wrote it and $0 otherwise." > And what are you trying to say by the phrase "counting some stuff and dividing those counts by some numbers and stuff"? I mean it is very hard for me to take a person seriously who is doing a whole bunch of interviews without even a working paper somewhere. It seems that if you use some arithmetic, people are inclined to accept what you did without questioning whether it makes sense to apply such models in this case. > The Dutch book argument shows that rational people ... You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I don’t object to your comments about the absence of a working paper. You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means. You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. Do you have any reason for this, or is it just a baseless accusation?