Jan 9, 2024 12:49 AM
https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/bayes...d-bullshit
EXCERPTS (John Horgan): . . . there’s nothing magical about Bayes’ theorem. It boils down to the truism that your hypothesis is only as valid as its evidence. If you have good evidence, Bayes’ theorem can yield good results. If your evidence is flimsy, Bayes’ theorem won’t be of much use. Garbage in = garbage out.
[...] Embedded in Bayes’ theorem is a moral message: If you aren’t scrupulous in seeking alternative explanations for your evidence, the evidence will just confirm what you already believe. Even more simply: Doubt yourself. Scientists often fail to heed this dictum, which helps explains why so many scientific claims turn out to be erroneous. Bayesians claim their methods can help scientists overcome confirmation bias and produce more reliable results, but I have my doubts.
Physicists who espouse string and multiverse theories have embraced Bayesian analysis, which they apparently think can make up for lack of genuine evidence. The prominent Bayesian statistician Donald Rubin has served as a consultant for tobacco companies facing lawsuits for damages from smoking. As the science writer Faye Flam once put it, Bayesian statistics “can’t save us from bad science.”
The next time someone like Frank, my former student, gushes to me about Bayes’ theorem, I’ll say: Yeah, it’s a cool tool, but what it really means--and I’m just guessing here, don’t take my word for it--is that we should never be too sure about anything, including Bayes’ theorem. The claim that Bayes’ theorem can protect us from bullshit is, well, bullshit... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS (John Horgan): . . . there’s nothing magical about Bayes’ theorem. It boils down to the truism that your hypothesis is only as valid as its evidence. If you have good evidence, Bayes’ theorem can yield good results. If your evidence is flimsy, Bayes’ theorem won’t be of much use. Garbage in = garbage out.
[...] Embedded in Bayes’ theorem is a moral message: If you aren’t scrupulous in seeking alternative explanations for your evidence, the evidence will just confirm what you already believe. Even more simply: Doubt yourself. Scientists often fail to heed this dictum, which helps explains why so many scientific claims turn out to be erroneous. Bayesians claim their methods can help scientists overcome confirmation bias and produce more reliable results, but I have my doubts.
Physicists who espouse string and multiverse theories have embraced Bayesian analysis, which they apparently think can make up for lack of genuine evidence. The prominent Bayesian statistician Donald Rubin has served as a consultant for tobacco companies facing lawsuits for damages from smoking. As the science writer Faye Flam once put it, Bayesian statistics “can’t save us from bad science.”
The next time someone like Frank, my former student, gushes to me about Bayes’ theorem, I’ll say: Yeah, it’s a cool tool, but what it really means--and I’m just guessing here, don’t take my word for it--is that we should never be too sure about anything, including Bayes’ theorem. The claim that Bayes’ theorem can protect us from bullshit is, well, bullshit... (MORE - missing details)
