ydoaPs

They also actually have regulations. According to the Constution, its what we now call the 'National Guard'.

Actually, there's been a school shooting or attempt every single school day since the 13th. 12 shootings in 20 days. edit: you pointed that out later in the thread Well, the first half of the amendment talks about the right being "well-regulated". Does random inspections not count as a regulation? That explains the insane "disconnected from military service" bit given the explicit wording of the amendment.

! Moderator Note Believe it or not, you don't get to just say whatever you want and get away with it in the religion forum. While the evidential standards are laxed, the critical thinking standards are not. Quote mining is still not allowed, and the copy/pasta of the above quoted post is one giant exercise of picking cherries. Furthermore, do not, under any circumstances make posts of giant copy/pastes again. You've been warned before. Now one might wonder why I said it was cherry picking, so I'll play the same game. Let's talk about peace. Playing fast and loose with quotation to prove a predetermined point like the article you copied, we can say Jesus said the exact opposite of Christianity being a religion of peace! "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."-Matthew 10:34 Even more, your post came after modnotes saying to stop turning the thread into a Christianity vs Islam thread. So: 1) Do not do a huge copy/paste again. 2) Keep to the intellectual standards of the site. 3) EVERYBODY stay on topic or the thread will be closed.

And apparently two shootings in the state capital today too.

There was a shooting at my uni today. Fyi, I'm alive.

If you're Kant, then yes. If you're sane, no. In Kant's day, he had the deranged axman. These days, we tend to use the Nazi example. You are in WW2 Germany hiding Jews in the attic. Nazis kick down your door and demand you inform them if/where you are hiding Jews. They will kill the Jews if they find them. Do you lie?

Did you ever finish it?

ALL domestic pets are GMO. We just didn't know what we were doing when we did it.

IE is the #1 browser for downloading better browsers.

The second book in the series (about Quantum Mechanics) is available for pre-order on Amazon.

If you're going to violate our rules about preaching, at least give us the courtesy of an original sermon instead of something that's been copypastaed around the entire interwebs. Bad form.

Yes, and everyone has a floofinigan. Labeling different objects with the same label doesn't make them the same thing. You're literally advocating systematic equivocation. But to what end? What's the point? If 'floofinigan' means whatever someone wants it to mean, it means nothing. The whole point of language is communication.

Sort of, but not really.

Yet infinity is not a number. This should give the OP pause. What operation can you do with two numbers to yield something which is not a number?

While the purpose of this thread was to stave off an involuntary vacation for kristalris as long as possible and the opening paragraph was intended simply to add background knowledge and context for the kristalris quotes which appear later in the OP, the wording of said paragraph was unnecessary. I should have been more sensitive to the various ways in which it could have been read. I sincerely apologize.

No, you cannot just set whatever prior you want. Doing so defeats the entire point of using Bayesian analysis in the first place. It's the cumulative addition of information. You can't just pretend all of the updating from the past never happened. No, it's not. It only works where there is evidence. You cannot use it to answer questions where you in principle cannot have evidence. You cannot use bayesian analysis to tell you whether or not you could have made that put anymore than you can use it to tell you how likely universes with different physical laws than our own are. You can only get evidence from the actual world. You can find out what isn't the case, but that doesn't tell you that it's not the case but could have been. Again, that something did not happen does not imply that it could have happened. The universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago by an invisible pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean it could have been. No, that's not true. They legitimately don't always give the same answer. And it's not just mistakes in applying the methods. Which logic? S? S*? SL? PL? S4? S5? Bivalent logic? Trivalent logic? There are more logics than you know and none of them say that frequentist methods and bayesian methods must give the same answer. In many cases, the proper frequentist answer is 'It's impossible to tell' while the bayesian method gives a definite answer. You can indeed work backward to find the inputs if you know the outputs. It's basic analysis.

If you quotemine like that, it does look bad. However, the thread is for a discussion kristalris wanted to have. It's just a place for him to have the discussion without hijacking other threads.

No, the prior is just the previous posterior. When you add new evidence to your body of knowledge, the updated probability is called the 'posterior probability' and is used as the next prior probability. But you have to worry about your very first prior. That one, though, isn't what you describe either. It is not the case that you can rationally assign any probability you want to the intrinsic prior. There are constraints such as simplicity and coherence. To use the linked example in the OP, we know that the intrinsic prior for theism must be less than 1/2. That is quite irrelevant. I'm not sure why you quoted that part of my post, said 'not true' then posted irrelevant blather. It's a fact that you cannot have evidence for whether or not that which did not happen could have actually happened. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to correct you on the point that not knowing whether or not something happened is not the same as it being possible. I know that I missed that put, but I could have made it. Well, no, for several reasons. Bayes's Theorem didn't actually come from Bayes (he used a geometric analog to the method on one specific problem, and derived no theorem. We owe Bayes's Theorem to Laplace). And there's nothing circular at all in setting the end results equal and working backward to see what the inputs must have been. You really should stop using that word since what it actually refers to is something you think we can't do. That is, make inferences in the complete absence of evidence. Not only is that not a 'dictate of logic' (whatever that means), but it's not even true. Bayesian methods and frequentist methods often do come apart. In situations where frequentist methods can even give an answer, the frequentist answer and the Bayesian answer can differ by orders of magnitude. That shouldn't be a point of controversy as it applies to all methods of reasoning. If you have false premises, your conclusions aren't guaranteed. If you model the Earth as a cube, you're going to get nonsense results. One of the prime examples of where Bayes was the only tool for the job was nuclear weapon safety. We needed to know the chances of accidental detonation of nuclear weapons, and the frequentists said it was impossible since none had yet accidentally detonated. However, the Bayesian methods allowed such calculations and paved the way for the safety constraints that were eventually used. It was also used to break the Enigma Code(s). As I've told kristalris, it's entirely useless in figuring out what could have happened but didn't, what must happen, or what can never happen.

Kristalris has a habit of derailing threads by shouting "BAYES' THEOREM!!!!!!111!1!11!" even when it's utterly irrelevant because no inference is even being made. So, I've decided to make this thread so he doesn't have to derail the others. He's made some hefty claims about Bayes's theorem. Some are true, some are false. Before we get into that, let's see what Bayes's theorem is. The propositional calculus tells us what is true when other things are true. The problem is, we rarely in a position to tell with the certainty that the propositional calculus demands whether or not propositions are true or false. We can do that with tautologies or contradictions (such as why we know it is necessarily true that naive set theory is false), but not much else. This is where probability theory comes in. We know from the fact that we can order our beliefs on how likely they are to be true and from the normative claim that we ought not violate the propositional calculus that rational beliefs track the Kolmogorov axioms from which we can derive a simple theorem known as "Bayes's Theorem" (despite the theorem being from Laplace): [math]P_{f}(h_1)=P_{0}(h_1|e_i)=\frac{P(e_i|h_1){\times}P_{0}(h_1)}{\sum^n_{j=1}{P(e_i|{h_j}){\times}P({h_j})}}[/math] This theorem lets us take existing beliefs ( P(h), called a "prior probability") and update them as evidence comes in. Krystalris says that "Bayes rules all of science", and he's actually right about that. Bayesian epistemology models both falsification (solving the Duhem problem) and allowing science to not only show which theories are wrong, but which ones are likely to be right. Where kristalris jumps the shark is the boundaries of Bayesian analysis. The likihood term ( P(e|h) ) should give anyone who thinks that ANY inference can be done by Bayes. Sometimes, there just isn't evidence, or the evidence supports each option equally well. In such cases, it comes down to the intrinsic prior. Since that is the prior before ALL evidence, and Bayes's Theorem is how we add evidence to our bodies of knowledge, it doesn't have a word to say. This, however, is not to say there aren't probabilistic methods for finding intrinsic priors. Then there's cases where the evidence is in principle impossible. Kristalris seems to think that non-mathematical counterfactual reasoning isn't a thing. Could you have made that put that you missed? Bayesian analysis can only tell you whether or not you probably did make that put, not whether or not you could. Bayesian analysis can only tell you what probably is the case, not what probably isn't, but could be or what must be. Finally (for this post, anyway), is kristalris's claim that "A truism doesnt exist in the Bayesian formula other than an incorrect garbage in prior odds assumption namely what you (implicitly) imagined". It's not hard at all to see how "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" falls out almost immediately from BT; just set two hypotheses with equal posteriors and unequal priors. "All else being equal, the simpler hypothesis is probably the correct one" also falls out fairly easily once you add in the easily proven fact that (P(a)>P(a&b))&(P(b)>P(a&b)); just set two posteriors equal with equal likelihoods. If I were better with words, I'm sure there's a truism in there somewhere about unlikely evidence being more bang for your buck.

I'm fine with letting s1eep make himself look even worse by making posts like that. If he tries to make this thread about the electric universe or whatever pseudoscience garbage he's on about, then we'll close it.

And there's nothing in principle wrong with being a mad man. One of my favorite people is a mad man with an ancient brand new blue box.

Not at all. That's actually a quite remarkable straw man. Considering how you've not actually addressed any of my arguments (for this rather non-controversial position, fyi) and your blatant flamebait, it's not surprised that you would misrepresent me as such. If you take a system and derive from that system a contradiction, the system is necessarily false. There is no set of circumstances in which naive set theory can be consistent. Yet, it can be easily imagined. It is in fact the way humans naturally approach sets, which is why it's called 'naive'. Bayes is irrelevant here and exactly for the reasons I've stated which you've never addressed. Stop trying to take the thread off-topic with your poor understanding of Bayesian epistemology. That's because you cannot know something which is false. Bayes cannot give you any information about what is not the case, but could be. You have no epistemic access to non-actual worlds, so there is absolutely no observation which can be used as evidence for the Bayesian machine when we're talking about the contingently false. Bayes can only tell you what most likely is, not what most likely isn't, but could be or what most likely must be. It sure does. P(f|m)=0 where f: 'ydoaPs is female' and m: 'ydoaPs' is male. Just, fyi, Bayes is what I do. You're wrong and you've been told several times why. You've addressed your mistakes precisely 0 times. Bayes is irrelevant to the topic, so stop. Priors are still based on experience. Things which are known a priori aren't. That's the whole point of Bayes: it updates the probability with new information giving you a new prior.

You're wrong on several levels here. First, 'a priori' is not the same as 'prior probability'. Second, you sure can have your prior and your posterior be exactly the same and there are several ways this can happen. For example, if the likelihood is the same for every one of the hypotheses or when your prior is 1 or 0. And, most importantly, your claim (I'll call 'x') is falsified by the OP (I'll call 'o'), so P(x|o)=0. You are absolutely wrong and it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, none of your waving of Bayes addresses this issue. Yes, I know with 'absolute truth' (whatever that is) that Russell's paradox shows naive set theory to be inconsistent.

Sure, I can point out any number of toy systems logicians have made up that have absolutely no extensional semantics. Or would you rather me construct one of my own?