Re: Opinions as Evidence

Robin Hanson (
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:22:45 -0800 (PST) writes:
>>I really think these three word titles are not a sufficient
>>description of each dispute to evaluate their status regarding this
>>issue. More details please.
>Are you saying that you are *not* aware of at least major factual point in
>each one that is seriously in dispute?
>For JFK, I'd name the single bullet theory.

I'm saying that I do not know enough about the details of these
disputes to evaluate the degree to which they are counter-examples to
the theory in question. I gave a long list of the details I wanted.
Sorry - academic theory evaluation really does put a high premium on
paying attention to details. I'll understand if you don't have the
time for such details.

>>>What evidence is there
>>>that *any* people, never mind ordinary ones, act like good Bayesian agents,
>>>apart from in science?
>>With "like" being the key word, lots of evidence. But
>>it is a standard first approximation.
>Can you provide me some references? I'm always open to evidence :-) but I've
>never seen anything which assumed that people generally were - or even could
>be - good Bayesian agents.

How about the entire literatures in experimental game theory and
decision theory over the last few decades? Standard journals where
such articles (sporatically) appear include Games and Economic
Behavior, Theory and Decision, American Economic Review, Econometrica,
& lots more with "Game Theory" in the title.

Robin D. Hanson