On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:24:04PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > If scientists are more likely to believe something that is true in > their field than to believe the contrary (which is false), then it > is a simple application of Bayesian inference to show that > scientists believing X is evidence for X. It doesn't mean that > their belief *causes* X any more that OJ's bloody glove causes him > to murder Nichol. But to hold that "97% of climate scientists > believe burning fossil fuel is causing global warming." is *not* > evidence for the truth of that statement requires that you also > believe scientists are more likely to believe what is false than its > contrary. > > Brent >
Cue the Bayesian and Popperian armies for a bloody clash. Where's Elliot when you need some fun! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
