Just use the googlebox here for the phrase “is Bayesian evidence for” to see what I’m talking about. Or Google itself—there are only 7 hits, three of them to LW.
That phrase makes sense when describing evidence that is not considered evidence according to other standards—such as science or traditional rationalism. For example “Absence of evidence is (Bayesian) evidence of absence”.
(Agree, expanding.)
That phrase makes sense when describing evidence that is not considered evidence according to other standards—such as science or traditional rationalism. For example “Absence of evidence is (Bayesian) evidence of absence”.
Yes. Alternately, “Bayesian evidence” suggests to me “evidence — but don’t think I mean evidence that completely rules out other possibilities.”