3 ms·
I don't know, but it does seem to be sometimes evangelised with more fervor than I'm comfortable with. Us v Them is always a suspicious narrative. Even in thi
by russellallen 15y ago
I don't know, but it does seem to be sometimes evangelised with more fervor than I'm comfortable with. Us v Them is always a suspicious narrative.
Even in this article, stuff like:
Finally, in 1983 the US Air Force sponsored a review of NASA's estimates of the probability of shuttle failure. NASA's estimate was 1 in 100,000. The contractor used Bayes and estimated the odds of rocket booster failure at 1 in 35. In 1986, Challenger exploded.
makes me uneasy. The rhetoric is too clearly marked.
- wolf550e 15y agoThe "1 in 100,000" silliness was noticed by Feynman and has nothing to do with Bayes, it was just PHB-thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_o...
- dagw 15y agoYea, that has nothing to do with Bayesian vs frequentist, and everything with massaging numbers to get the results that where expedient. I'm sure that the people at NASA would have been plenty smart enough to work out how to get the 1 in 100,000 result using Bayesian analysis if they really wanted to.