Instead of treating things as not passing a standard of evidence the Bayesian way is to treat something as providing a low amount of evidence that doesn’t cause a large update.
When I look at arguments people make on LessWrong I seldom see anybody referencing standards of evidence.
Ideal Bayesian reasoners can put low real numbers such as 0.000001% on some piece of evidence: organic brains can’t.
Real Bayesians have to round off to zero , ie. treat some things as not evidence at all.
And they do: Even though lesswrongians don’t often engage in explicit discussion of what is or isn’t evidence, they still have firm and fairly uniform opinions about it. You can see what happens to people with variant epistemologies by reading less wrong: they get downvoted, told they are not a good fit, etc.
Instead of treating things as not passing a standard of evidence the Bayesian way is to treat something as providing a low amount of evidence that doesn’t cause a large update.
When I look at arguments people make on LessWrong I seldom see anybody referencing standards of evidence.
Ideal Bayesian reasoners can put low real numbers such as 0.000001% on some piece of evidence: organic brains can’t.
Real Bayesians have to round off to zero , ie. treat some things as not evidence at all.
And they do: Even though lesswrongians don’t often engage in explicit discussion of what is or isn’t evidence, they still have firm and fairly uniform opinions about it. You can see what happens to people with variant epistemologies by reading less wrong: they get downvoted, told they are not a good fit, etc.