From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 21 2003 - 19:39:36 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
> The difficulty here stems from two different senses of the word
> "disagreement". Ideal Bayesians who "disagree about values" still cannot
> "disagree about facts". That is, having different values does not allow
> ideal Bayesians to disagree about facts, including the fact of
> who assigns
> what values. Perhaps this means that the term "disagreement" should not
> be used for differing values, and we should simply say that Bayesians may
> "assign different values".
This is an extremely important point, I think. Most of the "disagreements"
on the list are not really disagreements. Different people have different
data or assign different values. Most of the facts themselves are not in
dispute. This may be the primary root of most if not all semantic
misunderstandings. If this were recognized more often, perhaps more people
would act in a more Bayesian manner?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 21 2003 - 19:50:41 MDT