A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fermi paradox, your own belief?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #581  
Old July 8th 04, 02:32 AM
Geoff McCaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 10th 04, 10:25 AM
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 10th 04, 10:25 AM
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 10th 04, 04:56 PM
Bryan J. Maloney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 10th 04, 04:56 PM
Bryan J. Maloney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 11th 04, 02:30 AM
Aaron Denney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 11th 04, 02:30 AM
Aaron Denney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 6th 04, 03:14 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.ardice.com/Science/Social...iral_Zheng_He/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Fermi Paradox and Economics John Ordover SETI 126 November 19th 03 01:05 AM
Out of the Bubble, the Fermi Paradox Simon Laub SETI 0 September 19th 03 04:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.