**Next message:**Technotranscendence: "FWD: The Next FDA Commissioner Could Determine How Long You Live"**Previous message:**Doug Skrecky: "39'th update of fly longevity experiments"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Next in thread:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Eliezer wrote

*>There are non-Bayesians? I've never heard of any non-Bayesians or any
*

*>"controversy". Where I come from, "Bayesian reasoning" is practically a
*

*>synonym for "normative rationality".
*

Well, this question hasn't come up for me since the advent of the

web. Google to the rescue:

http://members.tripod.com/~Probability/bayes02.htm

I quote:

It seems that thinkers in the field of probability and statistics are

divided into two armed camps, the Bayeseans and the Non- Bayeseans. The

fact that such a divsion has existed amongst educated people for over sixty

years suggests that neither side can clearly be shown to be wrong. When

prior probabilities are given as data, the Non-Bayesean generally has no

objection to the use of the Bayes formula, but when prior probabilities are

lacking he deplores the Bayesean's tendency to make them up out of thin

air. The Bayesean retorts that the Frequentist methods merely conceal the

problem instead of solving it, and that he really is the more honest of the

two. Shouts of joy are heard when, as occasionally happens, a Non-Baysean

"sees the light" and comes over. There is much celebrating and past sins

are forgiven.

P. G. Hamer describes the schism in these terms:

A frequentist uses impeccable logic to answer the wrong question, while a

Bayesean answers the right question by making assumptions that nobody can

fully believe in.

End quote.

Hey! Looks like my guess was right: I was the non-Bayesian

and you were the Bayesian. Moreover, we played the roles to

the hilt. Further, it looks like the schism is alive and well.

*>> Only one question remains:
*

*>>
*

*>> > (Vorlon voice:) "We are all Bayesian statisticians."
*

Still one question remains: Okay, I know the Vorlons are

from B5. But this quote rings a bell. Where else in our

culture did someone say "We are all X now." Anybody recall?

Lee

**Next message:**Technotranscendence: "FWD: The Next FDA Commissioner Could Determine How Long You Live"**Previous message:**Doug Skrecky: "39'th update of fly longevity experiments"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Next in thread:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Fun With Bayes' Theorem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:05 MDT
*