"What about it? Is that what the evidence you have tells you? If so, have a ball, use it. If not, don’t. It’s anyway not “non-informative”. Information by definition is informative. It’s not even minimum. If it’s what you have, then it’s what you have. If it’s not, it’s not."
I find it more than somewhat worrisome that I understood this paragraph. Clearly.
One recent win for which I will happily give you credit was that I skipped over a 30-ish minute video the “algorithm” suggested entitled something like “the remote probability of our existence”.
I, using the knowledge with which you have armed me, could do a 10-second video assessing that probability
Fantastic work, William! Keep hammering away at the sheer absurdity of hypothesis testing. What we really want is Pr(H is true | evidence) deserves a bold unforgettable name. Bayes can get us there, but it deserves a banner all its own.
When I was reading I kept thinking about Venkman's ESP research in Ghost Busters and those halcyon days when we thought that ESP research was bunk and other science was real. It's all the same, turtles all the way down as they say.
"What about it? Is that what the evidence you have tells you? If so, have a ball, use it. If not, don’t. It’s anyway not “non-informative”. Information by definition is informative. It’s not even minimum. If it’s what you have, then it’s what you have. If it’s not, it’s not."
I find it more than somewhat worrisome that I understood this paragraph. Clearly.
I first read this title as "Does this guy have ESPN?"
I’m glad I read your work, Mr. Briggs.
One recent win for which I will happily give you credit was that I skipped over a 30-ish minute video the “algorithm” suggested entitled something like “the remote probability of our existence”.
I, using the knowledge with which you have armed me, could do a 10-second video assessing that probability
not only with precision, but with exactitude.
Fantastic work, William! Keep hammering away at the sheer absurdity of hypothesis testing. What we really want is Pr(H is true | evidence) deserves a bold unforgettable name. Bayes can get us there, but it deserves a banner all its own.
When I was reading I kept thinking about Venkman's ESP research in Ghost Busters and those halcyon days when we thought that ESP research was bunk and other science was real. It's all the same, turtles all the way down as they say.
I thought of the same thing! What are the odds?!