Why is this not the case? I thought the shortest summary of the bayesian process was prior → new evidence / arguments → posterior → posterior becomes new prior. I assumed that considering the quality of your evidence is a way to update your priors. What an I missing?
Sorry for being cursory, by “No” I meant to reply to the question in your comment “Isn’t this post an elaborate way of saying that today’s posteriors are tomorrow’s priors?” ⇒ “No, I don’t think that’s the point of the post”. I separately think that yes, today’s posteriors are tomorrow’s priors.
No.
Why is this not the case? I thought the shortest summary of the bayesian process was prior → new evidence / arguments → posterior → posterior becomes new prior. I assumed that considering the quality of your evidence is a way to update your priors. What an I missing?
Sorry for being cursory, by “No” I meant to reply to the question in your comment “Isn’t this post an elaborate way of saying that today’s posteriors are tomorrow’s priors?” ⇒ “No, I don’t think that’s the point of the post”. I separately think that yes, today’s posteriors are tomorrow’s priors.