Re: Bayes Destroyed?

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:50:35 -0700

marc.geddes wrote:
> On Aug 29, 6:16 pm, Brent Meeker <> wrote:
>>> 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.
> Ok, probablistic/axiomatic, none of it works without the correct
> priors, which Bayes can't produce.
Bayes explicitly doesn't pretend to produce priors - although some have
invented ways of producing priors with minimum presumption (e.g. Jaynes
maximum entropy priors). Analogical reasoning doesn't produce priors
either and it can produce false conclusions too.

> Another exmaple would be dream
> states, you could reason probalistically in your sleep, but without
> the correct priors, your dreams will still be largely incoherent.
There's a huge difference between incoherent and incorrect.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Bayes is very powerful- I just don't
> think it's the be-all and end-all.
>> Try basing all your
>> reasoning on analogies.
>> Brent
> I do. I think Bayes is just a special case of analogical reasoning ;)

Then you can say analogical reasoning is just a special case of
reasoning. Which then proves that reasoning is more fundamental than
analogical reasoning. Then will you claim to have destroyed analogical
reasoning. ??


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Aug 28 2009 - 23:50:35 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST