|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
In rec.arts.sf.science Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
Geoff McCaughan abagooba zoink larblortch : Now prove that we are the only instance. Point out specifically where I claimed that we are. It was in the same post where I said we were definitely not the only instance you idiotic jerk. Of course, since you're just a cultist, you'll just natter on with your bull**** about "simpler" and "uniformity". So far all I've seen you do on this thread is jump on anyone who admits the possibility of life other than on earth by shouting "prove it!" Are you exceptionally thick or something? -- Burn the land and boil the sea, You can't take the sky from me. |
#582
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
In message , Bryan J. Maloney
writes Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch news However, as a Bayesian I have a methodology that allows me to use every last shred of evidence - including our own existence. Our existence is perfectly good evidence that there is at least one planet in the At least one. Absolutely true. Now show me evidence that there are at least TWO. I can't. And equally you cannot prove to me that a second does not exist. But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
In message , Bryan J. Maloney
writes Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch news However, as a Bayesian I have a methodology that allows me to use every last shred of evidence - including our own existence. Our existence is perfectly good evidence that there is at least one planet in the At least one. Absolutely true. Now show me evidence that there are at least TWO. I can't. And equally you cannot prove to me that a second does not exist. But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch
: In message , Bryan J. Maloney writes Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch news However, as a Bayesian I have a methodology that allows me to use every last shred of evidence - including our own existence. Our existence is perfectly good evidence that there is at least one planet in the At least one. Absolutely true. Now show me evidence that there are at least TWO. I can't. And equally you cannot prove to me that a second does not exist. Quote where I claimed that it did not. But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. And how, given N=1 is this substantially better than a wild-ass guess? It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. So does "We've only had one observation, so no meaningful inference can be drawn." I hadn't realized that Bayesians could be so cultlike. |
#585
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch
: In message , Bryan J. Maloney writes Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch news However, as a Bayesian I have a methodology that allows me to use every last shred of evidence - including our own existence. Our existence is perfectly good evidence that there is at least one planet in the At least one. Absolutely true. Now show me evidence that there are at least TWO. I can't. And equally you cannot prove to me that a second does not exist. Quote where I claimed that it did not. But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. And how, given N=1 is this substantially better than a wild-ass guess? It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. So does "We've only had one observation, so no meaningful inference can be drawn." I hadn't realized that Bayesians could be so cultlike. |
#586
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
On 2004-07-10, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. And how, given N=1 is this substantially better than a wild-ass guess? Because it tells you exactly how limited this wild-ass guess is. It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. So does "We've only had one observation, so no meaningful inference can be drawn." I hadn't realized that Bayesians could be so cultlike. Meaningful, but limited inference can be drawn. -- Aaron Denney -- |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
Fermi paradox, your own belief?
On 2004-07-10, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
Martin Brown abagooba zoink larblortch But I can still compute a function describing the probability distribution of believing in the probability of a second example being found P(P(life)) given all the available data. That is in essence what Bayesian statistics does. And it is not hamstrung by the N=1 situation. And how, given N=1 is this substantially better than a wild-ass guess? Because it tells you exactly how limited this wild-ass guess is. It has certain nasty properties with such very limited data. Most notably that it cannot be normalised so the variance in any individual estimate P(life) is infinite. However, it represents accurately our current state of knowledge. So does "We've only had one observation, so no meaningful inference can be drawn." I hadn't realized that Bayesians could be so cultlike. Meaningful, but limited inference can be drawn. -- Aaron Denney -- |
#588
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Fermi Paradox and Economics | John Ordover | SETI | 126 | November 19th 03 12:05 AM |
Out of the Bubble, the Fermi Paradox | Simon Laub | SETI | 0 | September 19th 03 04:02 PM |