tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.comments2017-05-28T23:50:26.552-07:00CADRE CommentsBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger10918125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-69120435000812139492017-05-28T23:50:26.552-07:002017-05-28T23:50:26.552-07:00The only point worth responding to is here:
"...The only point worth responding to is here:<br /><br />"(2) God is not probable he is necessary by definition. if he is probable hes not God."<br /><br />God is necessary only in logics which assume his existence as an axiom. Obviously, using such a logic to evaluate whether or not God exists is begging the question. <br /><br />In any logic in which it is even possible to rationally Calehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17231108214219274750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-70877872192553991612017-05-28T23:39:39.169-07:002017-05-28T23:39:39.169-07:00A theist might have predicted that time had a begi...A theist might have predicted that time had a beginning, but, of course, a great many predicted just the opposite. However, since the "big bang" has not been confirmed to be the beginning of time, it hardly matters either way. <br /><br /><b>there is no particular reasom why we should make predictions because belief in god is not a matter of probability.</b><br /><br />"Second, Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-9617855136236266262017-05-28T23:19:17.307-07:002017-05-28T23:19:17.307-07:00ale said...
After all, Joe, big talk only gets you...ale said...<br />After all, Joe, big talk only gets you so far. If you actually want me to take you seriously, you need to offer a substantive critique that supports serious discussion. So far, you simply haven't.<br /><br /><b>In other words you are a member of the priesthood of knowledge, you haven the magic, the knowledge of statistics that's science that makes you worthy of being Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-91977618684196281342017-05-28T22:30:33.215-07:002017-05-28T22:30:33.215-07:00After all, Joe, big talk only gets you so far. If...After all, Joe, big talk only gets you so far. If you actually want me to take you seriously, you need to offer a substantive critique that supports serious discussion. So far, you simply haven't. Calehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17231108214219274750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-68707739715543414632017-05-28T22:29:15.050-07:002017-05-28T22:29:15.050-07:00Jayman:
"I suspect it's because complexi...Jayman:<br /><br />"I suspect it's because complexity cannot be reduced to Kolmogorov complexity."<br /><br />There certainly is an intuitive sense of complexity which people have a hard time reducing to Kolmogorov complexity, but this is not the major hurdle, I think. The concept itself is a bit difficult to wrap your head around. <br /><br />"First, it isn't true that Calehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17231108214219274750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-84165021527203567722017-05-28T18:03:27.224-07:002017-05-28T18:03:27.224-07:00JP Then [behavior of believers] is not a very soli...JP Then [behavior of believers] is not a very solid basis for evangelism, is it?<br /><br />You're having a different discussion with Joe than the related point here. Evangelism isn't about us, & that's a good thing for people to understand. But we're always going to be part of the picture. If we're like a 450-lb person advocating a health system, we're going to have Weekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-66260520862506846902017-05-27T16:21:47.769-07:002017-05-27T16:21:47.769-07:00It was different all right, individualism was 1800...It was different all right, individualism was 1800 years in the future. That's why they appealed to facts...and no, they were not expecting a messiah...not a crucified one. No ease there. Nice try.J. P Holdinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-91200353501302294092017-05-27T01:05:11.798-07:002017-05-27T01:05:11.798-07:00JPH: The Apostles didn’t have to play the “get to...JPH: <i> The Apostles didn’t have to play the “get to know you” game to evangelize. Yes, they did know their audiences, generally, as Jews or Greeks, but they certainly did not think they had to get to know them as friends – build that 10 ton bridge – before they started preaching.</i><br /><br />True, but the situation was rather different. The Jews were already expecting a messiah (a new king) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-29105690101431176942017-05-25T06:55:15.228-07:002017-05-25T06:55:15.228-07:00(Although I should add, looking over the article, ...(Although I should add, looking over the article, that this isn't the LW author I'm thinking of but another contributor to his blog. Oh well.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-40894021834814489372017-05-25T06:52:36.831-07:002017-05-25T06:52:36.831-07:00On a totally incidental side note, I'm a big f...On a totally incidental side note, I'm a big fan of "Less Wrong"'s epic fan-fiction rewrite of the Harry Potter story, <i>Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality</i>! So seeing Joe link to an article from him on the history of Bayesian Theory is highly amusing to me. {g} (One of his story arcs is named after and involves BT if I recall correctly.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-74203300496275215062017-05-25T06:49:10.147-07:002017-05-25T06:49:10.147-07:00What has been contentious, and revised with update...What has been contentious, and revised with updates in the past few decades, is trying to convert that inductive process to a mathematical mode that machines (in effect) can work at. Which gets back to Bayes' own original project: expressing inductive reasoning in formal logic and then connecting that to a math formula for cross-verification. You could say that his own related math formula (Jason Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-86509265526394015042017-05-25T06:48:19.351-07:002017-05-25T06:48:19.351-07:00Cole: {{What has changed, over the last...twenty y...Cole: {{What has changed, over the last...twenty years or so, roughly, is that methods of parameter selection, model updating, and hypothesis testing based around Bayes's theorem (rather than more traditional statistical methods) have become popular}}<br /><br />All of which bear on how new evidence weighs compared to current evidence in adjusting expectations of the truth or falsity of the Jason Pratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-62300977416622663672017-05-24T22:24:31.459-07:002017-05-24T22:24:31.459-07:00this guy Cale is all about his skill set, I used t...this guy Cale is all about his skill set, I used to do that toe just like that,I used to be just like that.I had my case down,I knew what I was going to say it was just a mater of manipulating opponents into putting themselves in a position where i could unload my lass notes from Serbian they were stunned had no idea what to say because they had never seen real theology work before,they were Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-58287674747321878282017-05-24T05:17:35.179-07:002017-05-24T05:17:35.179-07:00"First, it isn't true that theism (or at ..."First, it isn't true that theism (or at least some forms of it) does not make predictions[...]"<br /><br />"Second, even if a theory only makes retrodictions that is not enough to make it ad hoc."<br /><br />Great points! Thanks for your contributions here, Jayman. Don McIntoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01387665301048762546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-71380904336359336152017-05-24T01:27:11.052-07:002017-05-24T01:27:11.052-07:00here's another source that confirms the fact t...here's another source that confirms the fact that mathematicians have not always liked Bayes,<br /><br /><a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/774/a_history_of_bayes_theorem/" rel="nofollow"><b>Here</b></a><br /><br />again Bayes works well for things like finding submarines but not fro things where we have no empirical grasp of the issue.<br /><br /><br />Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-34722237752355032152017-05-24T01:19:08.892-07:002017-05-24T01:19:08.892-07:00Cale
you can play like my thing is not worth answ...Cale<br /><br />you can play like my thing is not worth answering we both t;s because you can't. I quoted an atheist arguing against the use of Bayes to prove God he said you have to have actuate information,that was my argument, you did not answer it. <br /><br />when you do not answer an youlose it.Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-68718675529229862692017-05-24T01:12:43.569-07:002017-05-24T01:12:43.569-07:00Your assertion that on one donuts is also fallacio...Your assertion that on one donuts is also fallacious, Vic try Repert does and some of those I quoted do. the only things you can prove it works to do are things I've admitted to they are empirical. For stuff like God not given in sense data obviously another story.You can pretend like I haven;/t said anything you just lost the argumet, <br /><br />In debate you don't answer an argument Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-79113242452494449152017-05-24T01:05:28.380-07:002017-05-24T01:05:28.380-07:00There isn't really a serious argument against ...There isn't really a serious argument against using Bayes to evaluate things like the probability that God exists, here, so I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on this post, but I figured that I would point out that the characterization of Bayes's role in probability theory and mathematicians' opinions of it presented here is just entirely wrong.<br /><br /><b>Obviously the Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-75496262185260023982017-05-24T00:56:07.827-07:002017-05-24T00:56:07.827-07:00"Bayes's theorem is not contentious among..."Bayes's theorem is not contentious among mathematicians or statisticians. It never has been. It's trivially provable from the axioms of probability (both as formalized by Kolmogorov and from within the less rigorous theories of probability that preceded him). "<br /><br />Not looking good for your scholarship dude, I footnoted that allusion it comes from:<br /><br /> Sharon Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-87799896441543118952017-05-23T17:07:07.541-07:002017-05-23T17:07:07.541-07:00Cale:
but people always get stuck on Kolmogorov c...Cale:<br /><br /><i>but people always get stuck on Kolmogorov complexity</i><br /><br />I suspect it's because complexity cannot be reduced to Kolmogorov complexity.<br /><br /><i>However, Theism itself is ad hoc in *exactly* the same way: the issue in both cases is that they only make retrodictions--not predictions.</i><br /><br />First, it isn't true that theism (or at least some forms Jaymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-38398951886104740112017-05-23T13:26:58.864-07:002017-05-23T13:26:58.864-07:00So, point of order:
Bayes's theorem is not co...So, point of order:<br /><br />Bayes's theorem is not contentious among mathematicians or statisticians. It never has been. It's trivially provable from the axioms of probability (both as formalized by Kolmogorov and from within the less rigorous theories of probability that preceded him). <br /><br />No-one doubts that Bayes's theorem is correct.<br /><br />What has changed, over Calehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17231108214219274750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-78806259607947762882017-05-23T11:21:25.984-07:002017-05-23T11:21:25.984-07:00Jayman
I have presented variations of this argume...Jayman<br /><br />I have presented variations of this argument before which do discuss simplicity and ad hocness, but people always get stuck on Kolmogorov complexity--it's just really hard for most people to wrap their heads around, for some reason, it seems. So, I figured I'd try explaining the prior distribution without calling on such an unusual, technical concept.<br /><br />I agreeCalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17231108214219274750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-15414001177126305312017-05-23T10:07:09.711-07:002017-05-23T10:07:09.711-07:00Cale, perhaps the reason your argument is underwhe...Cale, perhaps the reason your argument is underwhelming is because you don't comment on matters of simplicity and ad hocness (note: I can't read the original FB post so I'm going off what is said here).<br /><br />Regarding simplicity/complexity, in a comment you seem to suggest it's also a matter of mathematics alone (Kolmogorov complexity?). But it's arguable that that'sJaymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-14448521990621443402017-05-23T04:23:27.321-07:002017-05-23T04:23:27.321-07:00here's an example of why i think you need actu...here's an example of why i think you need actual accurate information to do good probability, It's an article by <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/computing-the-probability-of-god/" rel="nofollow"><b>Bob Sidensticker,</b></a> just a blogger.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Have you heard of the Drake equation? It’s a simple product of seven values, and it attempts Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63776246727204244082017-05-23T04:03:12.576-07:002017-05-23T04:03:12.576-07:00he problem with using principles such as Bayes the...he problem with using principles such as Bayes theorem is that they can’t tell us what we need to know to make the calculations of probability accurate in dealing with issues where our knowledge is fragmentary and sparse. The theorem is good for dealing with concrete things like tests for cancer, developing spam filters, and military applications but not for determining the answer to questions Joe Hinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com