Hey, I just saw this post. I like it. The coin example is a good way to lead in, and the non-quant teacher example is helpful too. But here’s a quibble:
If we follow Bayes’ Theorem, then nothing is just true. Thing are instead only probable because they are backed up by evidence.
The map is not the territory; things are still true or false. Bayes’ theorem doesn’t say anything about the nature of truth itself; whatever your theory of truth, that should not be affected by the acknowledgement of Bayes’ theorem. Rather, it’s our beliefs (or at least the beliefs of an ideal Bayesian agent) that are on a spectrum of confidence.
Hey, I just saw this post. I like it. The coin example is a good way to lead in, and the non-quant teacher example is helpful too. But here’s a quibble:
The map is not the territory; things are still true or false. Bayes’ theorem doesn’t say anything about the nature of truth itself; whatever your theory of truth, that should not be affected by the acknowledgement of Bayes’ theorem. Rather, it’s our beliefs (or at least the beliefs of an ideal Bayesian agent) that are on a spectrum of confidence.