I considered putting that link here in the open thread after I read about it on Marginal Revolution, but I read the paper and found it weak enough to not really be worth a lengthy response.
What annoyed me about it is how Albert’s title is “Why Bayesian Rationality Is Empty,” and he in multiple places makes cute references to that title (e.g. “The answer is summarized in the paper’s title”) without qualificaiton.
Then later, in a footnote, he mentions “In this paper, I am only concerned
with subjective Bayesianism.”
Seems like he should re-title his paper to me. He makes references to other critiques of objective Bayesianism, but doesn’t engage them.
I considered putting that link here in the open thread after I read about it on Marginal Revolution, but I read the paper and found it weak enough to not really be worth a lengthy response.
What annoyed me about it is how Albert’s title is “Why Bayesian Rationality Is Empty,” and he in multiple places makes cute references to that title (e.g. “The answer is summarized in the paper’s title”) without qualificaiton.
Then later, in a footnote, he mentions “In this paper, I am only concerned with subjective Bayesianism.”
Seems like he should re-title his paper to me. He makes references to other critiques of objective Bayesianism, but doesn’t engage them.