Another useful thing for qualitative Bayes from Jaynes—always include a background information I in the list of information you’re conditioning on. It reminds you that your estimates are fully contextual on all your knowledge, most of which is unstated and unexamined.
Actually, this seems like a General Semantics meets Bayes kind of principle. Surely Korzybski had a catchy phrase for a similar idea. Anyone got one?
Actually, this seems like a General Semantics meets Bayes kind of principle. Surely Korzybski had a catchy phrase for a similar idea. Can anyone got one?
Korzybski did “turgid” rather than “catchy”, but this seems closely related to his insistence that characteristics are always left out by the process of abstraction, and that one can never know “all” about something. Hence his habitual use of “etc.”, to the degree that he invented abbreviations for it.
Another useful thing for qualitative Bayes from Jaynes—always include a background information I in the list of information you’re conditioning on. It reminds you that your estimates are fully contextual on all your knowledge, most of which is unstated and unexamined.
Actually, this seems like a General Semantics meets Bayes kind of principle. Surely Korzybski had a catchy phrase for a similar idea. Anyone got one?
Korzybski did “turgid” rather than “catchy”, but this seems closely related to his insistence that characteristics are always left out by the process of abstraction, and that one can never know “all” about something. Hence his habitual use of “etc.”, to the degree that he invented abbreviations for it.