"Content like this should include specific, uncontroversial examples of all the claimed intellectual bankruptcy, and not include a bunch of random (and wrong) snipes."
I did in fact include empirical metrics of Dirichlet's superiority and how Bayes' Theorem fails in contrast: industry uses it, after they did their own tests, which is empiricism at work. I also showed how Dirichlet Process allows you to compute Confidence Intervals, while Bayes' Theorem is incapable of computing Confidence Intervals. I also explained how, due to the median of the likelihood function being closer to an equal distribution than Bayes would expect, Bayes is persistently biased toward whichever extrema might be observed in the sample. Thus, Bayes' Theorem will consistently mis-estimate; it's persistently wrong, and Dirichlet was developed as the necessary adjustment. So, I did give explicit reasons why Bayes' Theorem is inadequate compared to the modern, standard approach which has empirical backing in industry.
It seems like you want to rate-limit me for an unspecified duration? What are the empirical metrics for that rate-limit being removed? And, the fact that you claim I "didn't provide specific, uncontroversial examples," when I just showed you those specifics again here, implies that you either weren't reading everything very carefully, or you want to mischaracterize me to silence any opposition of your preferred technique: Bayes'-Theorem-by-itself.
The way you derive a confidence interval is by assessing the likelihood function, which is across the distribution of populations. Bayes' Theorem, as presented by Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowski, does NOT include those tools; you can't use what they present to derive an actual confidence interval. Your claim of 'confidence' on a prediction market is NOT the same as Dirichlet saying "95% of the possible populations' likelihood MASS lies within these bounds." THAT is a precise and valuable fact which "Bayes as presented to Rationalists" does NOT have the power to derive.
Erm, you are demonstrating that same issue I pointed-out originally: you thinking that you have the right answer, after only a wiki page, is exactly the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. You're evidence of my argument, now.
Screenshots are up! I'll be glad when more members of the public see the arguments you give for ignoring mine. :P cheers!
Astounding! Then my argument that "NOT including Dirichlet is wrong" must have been wrong? Or else, why are you mentioning that no one taught you to your own satisfaction?
Your difficulty understanding it is NOT equivalent to "no one has ever laid them out". Those are two wildly different statements. A dyslexic person would have similar difficulty reading a novel, yet that is NOT equal to "no one ever wrote a book."
Then why does industry use Dirichlet, not Bayes? You keep pretending yours is better, when everyone who has to publish physics used additional methods, from this century. None of you explain why industry would use Dirichlet, if Bayes is superior. Further, why would Dirichlet even be PUBLISHED unless it's an improvement? You completely disregard these blinding facts. More has happened in the last 260 years than just Bayes' Theorem, and your suspicion of the FDA doesn't change that fact.
Ah, first: you DID claim that I "didn't provide specific, uncontroversial examples" and I HAD given such for why Bayes' Theorem is inadequate. Notice that you made your statement in this context:
<<"Bayes is persistently wrong" - about what, exactly?
Content like this should include specific, uncontroversial examples>>
In that context, where you precede "this" with my statement about Bayes, I naturally took "content like this" to be referring to my statement that "Bayes is persistently wrong." I hope you can see how easy it would be for me to conclude such a thing, considering "this" refers to... the prior statement?
You now move your goal-posts by insisting that my statement "Rationalists repeatedly rely upon sparse evidence, while claiming certainty" was ACTUALLY the argument I had to support with specifics... while if I were to give such specifics, I would have betrayed individual confidences, which is unethical. So, no, I'll continue to assert without specifics, for the sake of confidences, that "Rationalists repeatedly rely upon sparse evidence, while claiming certainty" because MULTIPLE rationalist over the past YEAR have done so, NOT an isolated incident or an off-hand joke, as you assume.
Your assumption that my "amalgam of rationalists I've met over the last year" was somehow a one-off or cursory remark is your OWN uncharitable interpretation; you are dismissing my repeated interactions with your community; such has been the norm. Similarly, in the EA Forum post "Doing EA Better" - a group of risk analysts had been spending a year trying to tell EA that "you're doing risk-assessment wrong; those techniques are out-dated," and EA members kept insisting their way was fine and right. Eventually, that nearly-dozen folks sat down and scribed an essay to EA... and EA pointedly ignored that fact they mentioned! "EA dismisses experts when experts tell EA they're using out-dated techniques." I'm seeing a similar pattern across the Rationalist community, NOT a one-off event or a casual remark; they were using Bayes' Theorem improperly, as the substance of arguments made in response to me.
"As an aside, all the ways in which you claim that Bayes is wrong are... wrong?"
Bayesian Inference is a good and real thing. And, Bayes' Theorem is an old formula, used in Bayesian Inference. AND Bayes' Theorem cannot produce Confidence Intervals, nor will it allocate to minimize the cost of being wrong, nor does it make adjustments for samples' bias toward the extrema. Those are all specific ways where "I just plug it into Bayes' Theorem" is factually wrong. You keep claiming that my critique is wrong - but you only do so vaguely! You skip right past these failures of Bayes' Theorem, each time I mention them. Check the math books: there is NO "question of what tool is best for a given job," as you say - rather, Bayes' Theorem alone is NEVER the tool. You'll have to adjust in many ways, not just one. And if you don't do so, you are in fact using an obsolete technique during your Bayesian Inference.