Kingfish

When you are deep see fishing how often does it happen that you catch something and have no clue on the identification?

Kokiri,

Can we have this Bayes vs induction debate without treading into waters too murky?

I've been trying to think about it because I do think it's important.

The first question that I have is: how can you be sure then why you say that you are using bayes, that you aren't using deductive reasoning where you just start with a premise and it leads you to your conclusion?

So if your premise is: large conspiracies are impossible and it leads you to conclude that I'm fos, is that functionally the equivalent of using bayes or are they two different things?

How are bayesian probabilities any different than preconceived biases when it comes to politics?

And then my next set of questions involves a real world scenario.

Instead of using an inflammatory conspiracy like Sandy Hook I would want to examine something like the the two party system in America or in the UK even.

You have some people who believe that differences are real and you have others who believe that the differences are mostly illusory and that the parties are mostly the same--the conspiracy theory.

We know my approach: contrast the opposing theories against each other and see what fits best (with the possibility of creating a third different theory even).

But how exactly would Bayes work in this scenario? How can probabilities be determined when nothing is cut and dry?

Is there ever a point in which Bayes requires you to reject evidence as being valid or should all evidence be made to fit?

Almost never. Well, smaller baitfish sometimes. I get a little confused about subspecies but generally I know my fish.

In fact, a lot of times I know what it is, without seeing it, as soon as I hook it based on how it fights.

I was told there would be no math.

https://youtu.be/GC-l345c1FY

This was good. I'm arming myself. Up next Bacon.

*the way that he ends that video is gold: "lots of problems....but it does mean that it is a framework that people are openly willing to endorse without embarrasment"

they differ in certain ways and align in others

the dispute is whether the ways in which they differ are meaningful or significant, and then whether short term implications are more or less significant than long term ones


they can differ, significantly, in certain ways (access to healthcare, eg) while aligning in other ways (protection of healthcare financers) at the same time

ideologically motivated selective attention operates itt to cloud the significance of their differentiation and, apparently, falsely to suggest that their similarities are ignored or unrealized

If your point is that you can't apply bayes because the issue is too complex then I'd agree.

It's all a power grab is all you need to know. The only real real truth.

let me know once we get past this boring tangent plz

I think I should give it a couple weeks. I wrote my thesis. That is a start. I won't talk about the Florida thing and I would like everybody to be happy and there is a lot of opposition to this topic. I still do have to continue. But I don't see the need to rush.

I think the most important thing it's missing is the angry icon

i think the tide is turning. i think we'll see a ban an assault weapons in the near future

Here's hoping filthy.

i'm usually right, pretty much always really

National Review, conservative site, suggests special "gun violence restraining orders" for concerned family members. The idea itself is weak but it does indicate a willingness finally to do something.

Yeah anything but taking about the guns.

Trump has completely lost his **** over the Russian indictments and is having a massive twitter meltdown.

You'd think things could not continue like this much longer.

Those tweets seem pretty benign for Trump

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/03/...w-a-cia-front/

Nat rev = deep state/cia mockingbird

Trump's tweet about the dems being able to pass whatever they wanted when they controlled all houses is good.

Why didn't they? Because they would have faced political backlash.

Why did the assault weapons ban of 1994 get repealed? Political backlash.

It is easier to talk when not in power than act when in power and get voted out.

I thought we agreed no more conspiracy theories?

What is this?

I agreed I wouldn't talk about Florida until sandy hook is fully litigated.

That has nothing to do with the national review.