3 ms·
I have a hard time grokking your wording, but I'd like to point out that Bayes' Rule is typically "typed" to events (i.e. B is of type "event"). That being sai
by winwang 2y ago
I have a hard time grokking your wording, but I'd like to point out that Bayes' Rule is typically "typed" to events (i.e. B is of type "event").
That being said, I don't think this needs to be the case. The syntax could "compile" differently depending on context.
From my understanding, Bayes' Rule is more about updates to pre-existing probabilities, which we label with the suggestive name 'beliefs', which aren't necessarily tied to a human's mental state.
I do agree with your last paragraph, but I also accept that those profs likely do so because some majority or plurality of students do hols that belief. That being said, there's definitely room for different wording.
- mjburgess 2y agoin Bayesian epistemology, the arguments to probability "functions" are beliefs. To simplify my phrasing: to model any aspect of reality requires inventing a formalism; that formalism itself largely fails to correspond to reality. insofar as it does, the formalism is useless. Bayesian epistemology pretends to greater insights than it has, because it assumes that the modelling relation is simple; whereas, really its where the whole part of epistemology lies.