Beautiful Probability
readthesequences.com
Beautiful Probability
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Beautiful Probability
#2[deleted]
Re: Beautiful Probability
#3Isn't that Edwin T. Jaynes example just p-hacking? If only 1 out of 100 experiments produces a statistically significant result, and you only report the one, I would intuitively consider that evidence to be worth less. Can someone more versed in Bayesian statistics better explain the example?
Re: Beautiful Probability
#4Bayesian approach sounds like a religion (one true way).
There is nothing unusual about different mathematical methods/models producing different results e.g., the number of roots even for the same quadratic equation may depend on "private" thoughts such as whether complex roots are of interest (sometimes they do/sometimes they don't). All models are wrong some are useful.
Re: Beautiful Probability
#5So you know when you believe something and then you update your belief because you get some evidence?
Yeah, and then you stack some beliefs on top of that.
And then you discover the evidence wasn’t actually true. Remind me again what the normative Bayesian update looks like in that instance.
Unfortunately it’s turtles all the way down.
Re: Beautiful Probability
#6Isn't that Edwin T. Jaynes example just p-hacking? If only 1 out of 100 experiments produces a statistically significant result, and you only report the one, I would intuitively consider that evidence to be worth less. Can someone more versed in Bayesian statistics better explain the example?
I find the original discussion to be far more interesting than whatever I just read in TFA: https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=sLz0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lp...
Re: Beautiful Probability
#7So you know when you believe something and then you update your belief because you get some evidence? Yeah, and then you stack some beliefs on top of that. And then you discover the evidence wasn’t actually true. Remind me again what the normative Bayesian update looks like in that instance. Unfortunately it’s turtles all the way down.
> you discover the evidence wasn’t actually true
Not really going to vouch for the normative Bayesian approach, but you might just consider this new (strong) evidence for applying an update.
Re: Beautiful Probability
#8So you know when you believe something and then you update your belief because you get some evidence? Yeah, and then you stack some beliefs on top of that. And then you discover the evidence wasn’t actually true. Remind me again what the normative Bayesian update looks like in that instance. Unfortunately it’s turtles all the way down.
Real world systems are complicated. In theory, you could do belief propagation to update your beliefs through the whole network, if your brain worked something like a Bayesian network.
Re: Beautiful Probability
#9Isn't that Edwin T. Jaynes example just p-hacking? If only 1 out of 100 experiments produces a statistically significant result, and you only report the one, I would intuitively consider that evidence to be worth less. Can someone more versed in Bayesian statistics better explain the example?
I find the original discussion to be far more interesting than whatever I just read in TFA: https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=sLz0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lp...
Yeah generally Jaynes book is very nice and easy to read for this sort of material.
Re: Beautiful Probability
#10So you know when you believe something and then you update your belief because you get some evidence? Yeah, and then you stack some beliefs on top of that. And then you discover the evidence wasn’t actually true. Remind me again what the normative Bayesian update looks like in that instance. Unfortunately it’s turtles all the way down.
TThis just sounds like logical tetris