> He knows many things. He has no priors. So what is Leon Wieseltier saying here about Nate Silver, exactly? That Silver considers himself to have no priors? T

> He knows many things. He has no priors. So what is Leon Wieseltier saying here about Nate Silver, exactly? That Silver considers himself to have no priors? That he, Wieseltier, thinks that Silver has no priors? Both interpretations seem ignorant. Further, how can someone "know many things" and yet have no priors, when a prior is a representation of prior knowledge? I find it hard to believe that Wieseltier would be so dumb by accident, which means it's actually on purpose. The article is an attack on the sort of public discourse Silver wants - arguing over likelihood of outcomes under uncertainty - in favour of "repetition" and "persuasion". Are those "what American public discourse most urgently lacks?"