When [Bayesian reasoning] determines how we seek more data, we become stuck in a feedback loop and trapped in local minimization ruts.
I believe this is incorrect. Bayesian reasoning says (roughly) collect the data that will help nail down your current most uncertain predictions. It’s tricky to encode into Bayesian algorithms the model,
“An underspecified generalization of our current model which is constrained to give the same answers as our current model in presently available experiments but could give different answers in new experimental regimes.”
But Bayesian reasoning says that this possibility is not ruled out by our current evidence or prior information, so we must continue to test our current models in new experimental regimes to optimize our posterior predictive precision.
Switching topics… capital ‘S’ Science may be a useful literary foil, but count me among the group of people who are not convinced that it should be identified with the human activity of science.
I believe this is incorrect. Bayesian reasoning says (roughly) collect the data that will help nail down your current most uncertain predictions. It’s tricky to encode into Bayesian algorithms the model,
“An underspecified generalization of our current model which is constrained to give the same answers as our current model in presently available experiments but could give different answers in new experimental regimes.”
But Bayesian reasoning says that this possibility is not ruled out by our current evidence or prior information, so we must continue to test our current models in new experimental regimes to optimize our posterior predictive precision.
Switching topics… capital ‘S’ Science may be a useful literary foil, but count me among the group of people who are not convinced that it should be identified with the human activity of science.