On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:24:04PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > If scientists are more likely to believe something that is true in > their field than to believe the contrary (which is false), then it > is a simple application of Bayesian inference to show that > scientists believing X is evidence for X. It doesn't mean that > their belief *causes* X any more that OJ's bloody glove causes him > to murder Nichol. But to hold that "97% of climate scientists > believe burning fossil fuel is causing global warming." is *not* > evidence for the truth of that statement requires that you also > believe scientists are more likely to believe what is false than its > contrary. > > Brent >
Cue the Bayesian and Popperian armies for a bloody clash. Where's Elliot when you need some fun! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
