3 ms·
Having read chapter 2 of Probability Theory: the Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes, my probability for the stupidity hypothesis went way, way up. There's probabl
by loup-vaillant 14y ago
Having read chapter 2 of Probability Theory: the Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes, my probability for the stupidity hypothesis went way, way up. There's probably a heavy status-quo bias at work too.
I mean, many frequentist methods directly contradict Cox theorems! That should convince anyone they belong to History, not Science, doesn't it?
- loup-vaillant 14y agoI know the above comment sounds extremist, but bear in mind that its truth value has nothing to do with that. I mean for instance, the only reason "2 + 2 = 4, and anyone who believe otherwise lacks either a brain or some crucial information" does not sound extremist is because everyone actually agrees with it. So. Who in her right mind would reject the three assumptions behind Cox's theorem, and for what reason? Assuming we don't reject those axioms, why should we not reject Frequentism at once? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem