Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines:
• interesting, insightful, useful
• aim to explain, not to persuade
• avoid meta discussion
• relevant to people whether or not they
are involved with the LessWrong community.
This is a field in which the discoverer of the theorem that rational agents cannot disagree was given the highest possible honours...
I can't say I disagree.
Of course experimental design is very important in general. But VAuroch and I agree that when two designs give rise to the same likelihood function, the information that comes in *from the data* are equivalent. We disagree about the weight to give to the information that comes in from what the choic...(read more)
> you're ignoring critical information
No, it practical terms it's negligible. There's a reason that double-blind trials are the gold standard -- it's because doctors are as prone to cognitive biases as anyone else.
Let me put it this way: recently a pair of doctors looked at the available evidenc...(read more)
Thanks for the sci-hub link. So awesome!
> You're going to have a hard time convincing me that... vectors are a necessary precursor for regression analysis...
So you're [fitting a straight line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_linear_regression). Parameter estimates don't require linear algebra (that is, vectors and matrices). Super...(read more)
> Consciousness is the *most recent* module, and that does mean [that drawing causal arrows from consciousness to other modules of human mind design is ruled out, evolutionarily speaking.]
The causes of the fixation of a genotype in a population are distinct from the causal structures of the result...(read more)
Sure, I agree with all of that. I was just trying to get at the root of why "nobody asked [you] to take either vow".
Before I also haven't heard anybody speak about taking those kinds of vows to oneself.
This is a field in which the discoverer of the theorem that rational agents cannot disagree was given the highest possible honours...
I can't say I disagree.
Of course experimental design is very important in general. But VAuroch and I agree that when two designs give rise to the same likelihood function, the information that comes in *from the data* are equivalent. We disagree about the weight to give to the information that comes in from what the choic...(read more)
> you're ignoring critical information
No, it practical terms it's negligible. There's a reason that double-blind trials are the gold standard -- it's because doctors are as prone to cognitive biases as anyone else.
Let me put it this way: recently a pair of doctors looked at the available evidenc...(read more)
Thanks for the sci-hub link. So awesome!
> You're going to have a hard time convincing me that... vectors are a necessary precursor for regression analysis...
So you're [fitting a straight line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_linear_regression). Parameter estimates don't require linear algebra (that is, vectors and matrices). Super...(read more)
> Consciousness is the *most recent* module, and that does mean [that drawing causal arrows from consciousness to other modules of human mind design is ruled out, evolutionarily speaking.]
The causes of the fixation of a genotype in a population are distinct from the causal structures of the result...(read more)
Sure, I agree with all of that. I was just trying to get at the root of why "nobody asked [you] to take either vow".
It's not literal. It's an attempt at poetic language, like The Twelve Virtues of Rationality.
I don't disagree with this. A lot of the kind of math Scott lacks is just rather complicated bookkeeping.
(Apropos of nothing, the work "bookkeeping" has the unusual property of containing three consecutive sets of doubled letters: oo,kk,ee.)