Comments on: Weakly Informative Priors

By: On the Term “Religion” | The Beacon

On the Term “Religion” | The Beacon — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:03:37 +0000

[...] had similar experiences. Thank goodness for that twelve-step [...]

By: bill wald

bill wald — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:46:01 +0000

Herman Dooyeweerd (see Google) makes a good case that all humans are hard wired by God for religion and make something into a religion for themselves. He says it nicer.

On the other hand, “If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.”

By: Rafe

Rafe — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:33:24 +0000

Pity Lipsey never understood Popper on testing.

By: Tom S.

Tom S. — Fri, 11 May 2007 23:53:46 +0000

That Lipsey quote is interesting*, but I ultimately believe is wrong. We know a lot of things which aren’t (e.g., geocentricism). Further, it’s hard to see where his epistemology makes room for the notions of hypotheses.

*Interesting enough where I’m now looking a buy a copy.

By: Joseph Mahoney

Joseph Mahoney — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:46:53 +0000

I take it then that Professor Y had a low Bayesian prior concerning the soundness of Bayesians.

I wonder how Professor Y would respond to the assertion that at best, on balance, our empirical studies change our Bayesian priors for the better.

The second edtion of Richard Lipsey’s AN INTRODUCTION TO POSITIVE ECONOMICS said it better:

“I have abandoned the Popperian notion of refutation and have gone over to the statistical view of testing that accepts that neither refutation nor confirmation can ever be final, and that all we can hope to do is to discover on the basis of finite amounts of imperfect knowledge what is the balance of probabilities between competing hypotheses” (Lipsey, 1966: p.xx).