It was not to prove my claim; the post I wrote elaborates more fully on what I believe is the correct teaching process. If you read the post, it would become clear to you that my teaching standards have never been met in textbooks, and can hardly even in principle be met through textbooks. My teaching standards are not arbitrary; if these standards are not met then I will not truly understand the subject.
Your difficulty understanding it is NOT equivalent to “no one has ever laid them out”. Those are two wildly different statements. A dyslexic person would have similar difficulty reading a novel, yet that is NOT equal to “no one ever wrote a book.”
Feeling like you understand is not the same as actual understanding. People who read the existing explanations and feel like they understand, when the explanations did not follow the process I described, do not truly understand. My complaint is not that when I read the explanations I don’t feel like I understand them; my complaint is that the extents to which Bayesianism have ever been laid out are insufficient for creating true understanding upon first reading.
Astounding! Then my argument that “NOT including Dirichlet is wrong” must have been wrong? Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?
Then my argument that “NOT including Dirichlet is wrong” must have been wrong?
It could be right, actually. The only objection I made was in response to your objection to using personal experience, and I only talked about my intuition rather than what must or must not be the case.
Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?
You seem to want to proselytize better epistemic methods, and I am telling you what I need from you in order to adopt or reject your advised methods from an engineering angle (which I regard as superior); until then I can only follow clues of lesser quality (such as the correlation between caring about misleadingness and tendency to say things that impress me as insightful); the detective angle.
“I don’t need to engage with Anthony’s arguments unless he presents them to my satisfaction.”
AND
“No one on Earth has ever presented Bayes to my satisfaction.”
If NO ONE has EVER presented that information to your satisfaction, it would be daft to assume I would accomplish such a feat! You have such high standards as a pre-requisite to your engagement, that by your OWN admission, NO ONE in history has ever MET your standard! Why bother telling me all this? I didn’t share the post to convince or proselytize—as I said in the intro, I am only sharing this on your site as a courtesy. I wrote it on another newsletter, for the general public to learn about all of you.
And, considering that your community’s response is “I don’t have to engage with the argument unless you present it to my satisfaction, and NO ONE has ever done so, thus I win,” the public should get to have a good, stern look at your behavior and justifications. I get you to betray yourself, and screenshot your responses, to show the PUBLIC what your community is like.
You should not argue for that which you do not understand in the first place as though you understood it.
I think I am a very odd member of the rationalist community; it would not make sense to take me as a representative. Many people here would probably be comfortable saying they understand Bayesianism after a typical explanation and I would have to disagree with them about that, little high-standards weirdo that I am.
I’m sorry that you feel like I was making any of my responses at your expense; I don’t want you to lose, and by helping each other make considerations not made before I believe we are helping each other win.
It was not to prove my claim; the post I wrote elaborates more fully on what I believe is the correct teaching process. If you read the post, it would become clear to you that my teaching standards have never been met in textbooks, and can hardly even in principle be met through textbooks. My teaching standards are not arbitrary; if these standards are not met then I will not truly understand the subject.
Your difficulty understanding it is NOT equivalent to “no one has ever laid them out”. Those are two wildly different statements. A dyslexic person would have similar difficulty reading a novel, yet that is NOT equal to “no one ever wrote a book.”
Feeling like you understand is not the same as actual understanding. People who read the existing explanations and feel like they understand, when the explanations did not follow the process I described, do not truly understand. My complaint is not that when I read the explanations I don’t feel like I understand them; my complaint is that the extents to which Bayesianism have ever been laid out are insufficient for creating true understanding upon first reading.
Astounding! Then my argument that “NOT including Dirichlet is wrong” must have been wrong? Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?
It could be right, actually. The only objection I made was in response to your objection to using personal experience, and I only talked about my intuition rather than what must or must not be the case.
You seem to want to proselytize better epistemic methods, and I am telling you what I need from you in order to adopt or reject your advised methods from an engineering angle (which I regard as superior); until then I can only follow clues of lesser quality (such as the correlation between caring about misleadingness and tendency to say things that impress me as insightful); the detective angle.
Screenshots are up! I’ll be glad when more members of the public see the arguments you give for ignoring mine. :P cheers!
Wait. Let me see if I’ve got the core points:
“I don’t need to engage with Anthony’s arguments unless he presents them to my satisfaction.”
AND
“No one on Earth has ever presented Bayes to my satisfaction.”
If NO ONE has EVER presented that information to your satisfaction, it would be daft to assume I would accomplish such a feat! You have such high standards as a pre-requisite to your engagement, that by your OWN admission, NO ONE in history has ever MET your standard! Why bother telling me all this? I didn’t share the post to convince or proselytize—as I said in the intro, I am only sharing this on your site as a courtesy. I wrote it on another newsletter, for the general public to learn about all of you.
And, considering that your community’s response is “I don’t have to engage with the argument unless you present it to my satisfaction, and NO ONE has ever done so, thus I win,” the public should get to have a good, stern look at your behavior and justifications. I get you to betray yourself, and screenshot your responses, to show the PUBLIC what your community is like.
You should not argue for that which you do not understand in the first place as though you understood it.
I think I am a very odd member of the rationalist community; it would not make sense to take me as a representative. Many people here would probably be comfortable saying they understand Bayesianism after a typical explanation and I would have to disagree with them about that, little high-standards weirdo that I am.
I’m sorry that you feel like I was making any of my responses at your expense; I don’t want you to lose, and by helping each other make considerations not made before I believe we are helping each other win.