Bayesians don't accept or reject their priors; they adjust them in response to any new evidence.
Humans, on the other hand, rationalize. I do it to. But in this case, you have to admit that you're quacking an awful lot like that kind of duck. Jameson 2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > Rationality in the face of the complexity of reality entails having priors > and valuing empiricism(based on more than a case-study) over theory. > There's not evidence to make me reject my prior that in the short-run in > the US that the variance in the quality of alternatives to FPTP(apart from > "top 2 primary") is not great enuf to justify trying to change horses going > different directions. And, It greatly pales in the face of the evidence > that the use of Am forms of PR is crucial to stop the cut-throat > competitive struggle between our top two parties to dominate US politics. > > dlw > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> Agreed, but no chance this will happen. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What if electoral analysts put more of their power into showing others >>>>> why such a change would be for the greater good, rather than dickering >>>>> over >>>>> which single-winner election rule is the best??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you should apply this audacious hope argument to the p_x's. >>>> >>> >>> Not-so much if I'm right about the variance of the Xs for single-winner >>> political elections... >>> >>> Which would better have helped me guess you would say this: modeling you >> as a rational truth-seeker, or modeling you as someone rationalizing >> pre-decided conclusions? >> >> Jameson >> > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
