Question for all the #BayesianStatistics and #epistemology folks: can a Bayesian falsify things?
-
Question for all the #BayesianStatistics and #epistemology folks: can a Bayesian falsify things? Or is falsification just a different updating function for knowledge?
Reason for saying this: falsification to me is kind of a Schumpeterian version of epistemology. You tear down a building (theory) to get a new, better one. Bayesianism on the other hand is more akin to a formative evaluation. -
Ulrike Hahnreplied to Oliver D. Reithmaier last edited by
@odr_k4tana the Bayesian framework allows you to revise your degree of belief in the truth/falsity of a claim like "Joe Biden is the democratic presidential nominee". Evidence in favour will increase that belief, evidence against will decrease it.
It doesn't matter whether you happen to be more interested in its truth or its falsity.but maybe I'm missing your point?
-
Oliver D. Reithmaierreplied to Ulrike Hahn last edited by
@UlrikeHahn well, I know how Bayes works
My question comes from the angle where people create things like "Bayesian P-values" that (for me) come from a different epistemological interpretation which Bayes cannot answer. My question is basically am I right in saying this or whether that's just something my brain made up. -
Oliver D. Reithmaierreplied to Oliver D. Reithmaier last edited by
@UlrikeHahn in other words: is Freq not extremely alien to how things work in reality? I know there's conditions to meet for frequentist testing, but are they ever met? Aand is it efficient to do this? I feel like constructing theories to then test is a bit of extra mileage added onto an otherwise straight path.
-
Ulrike Hahnreplied to Oliver D. Reithmaier last edited by
@odr_k4tana Oliver, I had typed out a response that somehow failed to include your handle...(I've now edited it in, but doubt that works..)
it's here https://fediscience.org/@UlrikeHahn/113029731632614410