How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#2Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community.
Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons.
I don't think we have seen the end of Bayes, either, as it is very useful for uncertainty quantification in the engineering Sciences, machine learning techniques, or even discovering the Higgs Boson.
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#3Brexit is the best example so far.
That painful dissonance between so called reality and these probabilistic models.
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#4I found this talk extremely interesting despite being already somwhat familiar with the history of Bayesian methods; I heartily recommend watching it in its entirety regardless of prior familiarity with the subject.
The talk was also presented very well. It's almost novel nowadays for something like this to not be some sort of powerpoint presentation, and I can't say it suffered for it.
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#5Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community. Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons. I don…
To your last paragraph: most of my fellow physicists do not care much about the distinction between bayesian and frequentist approaches, they just use a prepackaged tool to process their data. But of the few that learn those tools intimately, cosmologists are always bayesians (because we have only one Universe), and experimental particle physicists are always frequentist (because generating a ton of repeated test events is "cheap").
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#6Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community. Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons. I don…
The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#7Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community. Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons. I don…
As someone new to Bayesianism I'd be interested in hearing your experience applying it in day-to-day life. How useful do you think it is to the ordinary Joe?
From my brief experience, after learning Bayes, my intuition about things involving probabilities grew very different than the people around me. For example, my friends were planning a skydiving trip and I googled the name of the skydiving business and found that they had fatal incidents in the past. My friends were convinced that given that they had incidents either the probability that we would have an incident using them doesn't change. Or worse, that since it has already happened, it's now less likely that an incident would happen. Wat.
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#8Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community. Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons. I don…
To your last paragraph: most of my fellow physicists do not care much about the distinction between bayesian and frequentist approaches, they just use a prepackaged tool to process their data. But of the few that learn those tools intimately, cosmologists are always bayesians (because we have only one Universe), and experimental particle physicists are always frequentist (because generating a ton of repeated test eve…
The particle physics do sometimes make Bayesian plots and end up arguing over priors. See this, for example:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-0...
And I've heard more than one confused argument between particle physicists about whether Bayesianism or frequentism is "right"...
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
To your last paragraph: most of my fellow physicists do not care much about the distinction between bayesian and frequentist approaches, they just use a prepackaged tool to process their data. But of the few that learn those tools intimately, cosmologists are always bayesians (because we have only one Universe), and experimental particle physicists are always frequentist (because generating a ton of repeated test eve…
The particle physics do sometimes make Bayesian plots and end up arguing over priors. See this, for example: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1375842/files/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-0... And I've heard more than one confused argument between particle physicists about whether Bayesianism or frequentism is "right"...
Given the high level of statistical certainty that particle physicists strive for from experimental data, how much of a difference does the approach matter by the point where they are confident enough to endorse the theory?
For instance, if you are going for five sigma (like in the Higgs Boson discovery), how would the different techniques change when the data is considered sufficient, if at all?
Re: How Bayes’ Rule Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy
#10Bayesian here. 'The theory that would not die' is a wonderful read, and notes how many scientists used Bayesian techniques (subjective probability) in a variety of contexts while the field was still unpopular (arguably, heretical) in the mainstream statistical community. Bayes was nevertheless used to inform ballistics calculations, help crack the enigma code, or inform search patterns for lost nuclear weapons. I don…
As someone new to Bayesianism I'd be interested in hearing your experience applying it in day-to-day life. How useful do you think it is to the ordinary Joe? From my brief experience, after learning Bayes, my intuition about things involving probabilities grew very different than the people around me. For example, my friends were planning a skydiving trip and I googled the name of the skydiving business and found tha…
I think your anecdote is good. Knowing the formula for Bayes theorem isn't necessary, and I've never needed to try to do the math in my head or anything. But understanding probability theory, and having an intuitive feel for what probability is, is really important.