If you compared probabilities of models based on consistency with the data and their overall plausibility, I’d call that close enough to be on the outskirts of Bayesian—and with the qualifier ‘unintentional’, which indicates that you’re not going to be precisely formally correct, I’d say it fits.
Well, to actually call yourself a bayesian, some may say that you have to explicitly use Bayes theorem to do the updates. To avoid confusion, you may wish to use a more accurate term. Around here we use them term “rationalist” in the sense you were using “bayesian”, and more people will understand you if that is the word you use. Ultimately, it’s just a question of words, but you do want to avoid confusion and have people understand you, so it is a good idea to use words in the style others use them.
What’s your concept of a “bayesian”?
Somebody who incorporates evidence to update a belief’s degree of truthfulness.
Does this explanation sound right?
If you compared probabilities of models based on consistency with the data and their overall plausibility, I’d call that close enough to be on the outskirts of Bayesian—and with the qualifier ‘unintentional’, which indicates that you’re not going to be precisely formally correct, I’d say it fits.
Well, to actually call yourself a bayesian, some may say that you have to explicitly use Bayes theorem to do the updates. To avoid confusion, you may wish to use a more accurate term. Around here we use them term “rationalist” in the sense you were using “bayesian”, and more people will understand you if that is the word you use. Ultimately, it’s just a question of words, but you do want to avoid confusion and have people understand you, so it is a good idea to use words in the style others use them.
Duly noted.
I won’t, however, replace the word ‘bayesian’ from this article’s title and body with ‘rationalist’ so that others may learn from my confusion.