Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Photo cross-post
- 2: The advice in the UK over teachers and AI is baffling to me
- 3: Interesting Links for 10-06-2025
- 4: Interesting Links for 05-06-2025
- 5: Interesting Links for 07-06-2025
- 6: Interesting Links for 09-06-2025
- 7: Interesting Links for 08-06-2025
- 8: History Repeating Itself (Labour and ID cards edition)
- 9: Interesting Links for 06-06-2025
- 10: The Sickening Has Me
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-10-05 01:06 pm (UTC)The prior, likelihood, posterior approach also explains why the same set of data can be taken as evidence for utterly different conclusions - eg. tea partyists and liberals. They're working from utterly different priors, which are there no matter what. Even if you're a frequentist.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-05 02:05 pm (UTC)Where did that get its prior? :-)
here there is good reason for a prior (a previous set of data for example), or where a variety of uniform priors don't affect the posterior, then I don't have a problem
Absolutely -- in a symmetrical situation (the ball is under one of three cups) a uniform prior is perfect.
They're working from utterly different priors, which are there no matter what. Even if you're a frequentist.
Sure -- but having different outcomes from the same set of data (depending on prior) would not happen in frequentist analysis (and, a good Bayesian would say that the conclusions are not meaningful unless there was a reason to prefer one prior).
no subject
Date: 2011-10-06 02:34 pm (UTC)http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/bayes-in-the-dock/#entry
no subject
Date: 2011-10-06 02:40 pm (UTC)My reading of the original redacted court document was that it was Bayesian statistics, not Bayes Theorem which the judge ruled against. The Guardian article muddies the water completely by using the two interchangably. The original court document is heavily redacted so it's unclear.
If the Prof you link to is right, it's a stupid ruling but I *think* he's working from the Guardian article not the court document. The rest of his column is interesting though.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-06 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-06 02:54 pm (UTC)