3 ms·

Bayes lets you use your priors, which can be very helpful. I got all riled up when I saw you wrote "correct", I can't really explain why... but I just feel tha

by sgt101 2y ago

Bayes lets you use your priors, which can be very helpful. I got all riled up when I saw you wrote "correct", I can't really explain why... but I just feel that we need to keep an open mind. These approaches to data are choices at the end of the day... Was Einstein a Bayesian? (spoiler: no)

refulgentis 2y ago
You're absolutely right, trying to walk a delicate tightrope that doesn't end up with me giving my unfiltered "you're wrong so lets end conversation" response. Me 6 months ago would have written: "this comment is unhelpful and boring, but honestly, that's slightly unfair to you, as it just made me realize how little help the article is, and it set the tone. is this even a real argument with sides?" For people who want to improve on this aspect of themselves, like I did for years: - show, don't tell (ex. here, I made the oddities more explicit, enough that people could reply to me spelling out what I shouldn't.) - Don't assert anything that wasn't said directly, ex. don't remark on the commenter, or subjective qualities you assess in the comment.
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Using your priors is another way of saying you know something about the problem. It is exceedingly difficult to objectively analyze a dataset without interjecting any bias. There are too many decision points where something needs to be done to massage the data into shape. Priors is just an explicit encoding of some of that knowledge.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > Priors is just an explicit encoding of some of that knowledge. A classic example is analyzing data on mind reading or ghost detection. Your experiment shows you that your ghost detector has detected a haunting with p < .001. What is the probability the house is haunted?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    With a prior like that, why would you even bother pretending to do the research?
    - ants_everywhere 2y ago
      Well, something could count as evidence that ghosts or ESP exist, but the evidence better be really strong. A person getting 50.1% accuracy on an ESP experiment with a p-value less than some threshold doesn't cut it. But that doesn't mean the prior is insurmountable. The closing down of loopholes in Bell inequality tests is a good example of a pretty aggressive prior being overridden by increasingly compelling evidence.
  - laserlight 2y ago
    The fact that you are designing an experiment and not trusting it is bonkers. The experiment concludes that the house is haunted and you've already agreed that it would be so before the experiment.

by sgt101 2y ago

refulgentis 2y ago

You're absolutely right, trying to walk a delicate tightrope that doesn't end up with me giving my unfiltered "you're wrong so lets end conversation" response. Me 6 months ago would have written: "this comment is unhelpful and boring, but honestly, that's slightly unfair to you, as it just made me realize how little help the article is, and it set the tone. is this even a real argument with sides?" For people who want to improve on this aspect of themselves, like I did for years: - show, don't tell (ex. here, I made the oddities more explicit, enough that people could reply to me spelling out what I shouldn't.) - Don't assert anything that wasn't said directly, ex. don't remark on the commenter, or subjective qualities you assess in the comment.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Using your priors is another way of saying you know something about the problem. It is exceedingly difficult to objectively analyze a dataset without interjecting any bias. There are too many decision points where something needs to be done to massage the data into shape. Priors is just an explicit encoding of some of that knowledge.

ants_everywhere 2y ago
> Priors is just an explicit encoding of some of that knowledge. A classic example is analyzing data on mind reading or ghost detection. Your experiment shows you that your ghost detector has detected a haunting with p < .001. What is the probability the house is haunted?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  With a prior like that, why would you even bother pretending to do the research?
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    Well, something could count as evidence that ghosts or ESP exist, but the evidence better be really strong. A person getting 50.1% accuracy on an ESP experiment with a p-value less than some threshold doesn't cut it. But that doesn't mean the prior is insurmountable. The closing down of loopholes in Bell inequality tests is a good example of a pretty aggressive prior being overridden by increasingly compelling evidence.
- laserlight 2y ago
  The fact that you are designing an experiment and not trusting it is bonkers. The experiment concludes that the house is haunted and you've already agreed that it would be so before the experiment.