marc.geddes wrote: > > On Aug 29, 5:21 am, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > >> Look at Winbugs or R. They compute with some pretty complex priors - >> that's what Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were invented for. >> Complex =/= uncomputable. >> > > Techniques such the Monte Carlo method don’t scale well. > > > They do with Metropolis integration.

>> Actually Bayesian inference gives a precise and quatitative meaning to >> Occam's razor in selecting between models. >> >> http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/papers/ockham.pdf >> >> >> > > The formal definitions of Occam’s razor are uncomputable. Remember, > the theory of Bayesian reasoning is *itself* a scientific model, so > differences of opinion about Bayesian models will result in mutually > incompatible science. That’s why Bayes has serious problems. (see > below for more on this point) > And analogical reasoning is computable and doesn't produce any differences of opinion?? > > >> And beliefs do not converge, even in probability - compare Islam and >> Judaism. Why would any correct theory of degrees of belief suppose >> that finite data should remove all doubt? >> > > > So how did people come to believe things like Islam and Judaism in > the first place? (the beliefs PRIOR to collecting evidence) Bayes > can’t tell you *what* to believe, it can only tell you how your > beliefs should *change* with new evidence. The fact that you are free > to believe anything to start with shows that Bayes has major > problems. > The only reasons analogical reasoning seems better to you is that it's a vague and ill defined method that encompasses anything you want it to. You are always free to believe anything. Of course Bayesian inference doesn't solve all problems - but at least it solves some of them. > Stathis once pointed on this list that crazy people can actually still > perform axiomatic reasoning very well, and invent all sorts of > elaborate justifications, the problem is their priors, not their > reasoning; so if you try to use Bayes as the entire basis of your > logic, you’re crazy ;) > Axiomatic reasoning =/= probabilistic reasoning. Try basing all your reasoning on analogies. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---