Of course, a good hierarchical Bayes reasoner is going to use huge amounts of prior information against small amounts of countervailing evidence. Do you start believing in ghosts every time someone puts on a white sheet and jumps out at you?
Did you mean to reply to a different post? That doesn’t seem relevant to either the quote or the source article. A better metaphor here would be not believing in linens when someone puts on a white sheet and jumps out at you.
Well, if you see something ghost-like, that’s a weak evidence in favor of existence of ghosts. But it’s a weak evidence, it doesn’t trump everything else we know about the world.
Of course, a good hierarchical Bayes reasoner is going to use huge amounts of prior information against small amounts of countervailing evidence. Do you start believing in ghosts every time someone puts on a white sheet and jumps out at you?
Did you mean to reply to a different post? That doesn’t seem relevant to either the quote or the source article. A better metaphor here would be not believing in linens when someone puts on a white sheet and jumps out at you.
Well, if you see something ghost-like, that’s a weak evidence in favor of existence of ghosts. But it’s a weak evidence, it doesn’t trump everything else we know about the world.
On the other hand, in this case, it was more that they didn’t check, than that they didn’t believe the evidence.