From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 13:16:27 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone really believe that Robin Hanson does not,
> > in some tiny recess of his mind, enjoy tweaking
> > conventional tastes by proposing something that is
> > quite logical, but simultaneously outrageous to usual
> > tastes? Does anyone here think that those of us very
> > in love with the idea of cloning aren't also---just a
> > wee bit---enjoying the avant garde feeling of endorsing
> > an aspect of the provocative future? [I later admitted
> > that I too get such enjoyment, and Rafal chimed in that
> > this description *certainly* applies to him!]
>
> It is in no wise true that Bayesians may not *enjoy* tweaking conventional
> tastes; rather, Bayesians may tweak conventional tastes (and enjoy it)
> only when the ordinary evidence is against the conventional tastes.
Ah, but my point was that in the spirit of the earlier discussions
and in the spirit of Robin's paper on the subject of correcting
one's biases, should not Bayesians suspect that this enjoyment
slants their perception?
(Here of course I must say that I am talking about real Bayesians
since there are no ideal Bayesians---but then, perhaps no one has
addressed what *real* Bayesians do or say until this moment!?)
And if they do acknowledge this bias, then the good Bayesians
must attempt to control for this glee, by slightly devaluing
in turn their objective estimates that a certain provocative
hypothesis is true. I proudly claim to do just this: whenever
it looks like I'm enjoying some radical proposal too much, I
try (perhaps not very hard, he he he) to develop a little
corresponding skepticism about it.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 13:25:23 MDT