I don’t think you know what “prior” means. Prior to what update? “the priors against this all being untrue seem at least a little bit lower considering the above” Priors don’t change.
Sorry, definitely not the most proficient with the lingo. I believe I should have said:
“That said, considering the above, I would suspect updating your priors in the direction of this all being true, at least a little bit, seems reasonable.”
That phrasing makes it clear what is meant, but I think the phrase “updating your priors” is still carrying the confused terminology and we need to stop using it, again, priors don’t change in response to observations (though in physically constrained/embedded cognition [that is, the profane/imperfect/physically possible version of bayesian reasoning that physical human beings can do] there has to be some sense in which a prior can change in response to arguments/reasoning/reflection, which complicates the issue a lot).
The updated probability, P(Prior|Observation), is called the posterior. There would be less confusion carried by the phrasing “updating on your priors”, but I feel like it’d just collapse back to where it was.
I’m not sure anyone else has the notice when a word has implicit parameters (“prior” practically always does btw) and notice when the binding is ambiguous method yet so I feel it’s my responsibility.
I don’t think you know what “prior” means. Prior to what update? “the priors against this all being untrue seem at least a little bit lower considering the above” Priors don’t change.
Sorry, definitely not the most proficient with the lingo. I believe I should have said:
“That said, considering the above, I would suspect updating your priors in the direction of this all being true, at least a little bit, seems reasonable.”
I think? Is that closer?
That phrasing makes it clear what is meant, but I think the phrase “updating your priors” is still carrying the confused terminology and we need to stop using it, again, priors don’t change in response to observations (though in physically constrained/embedded cognition [that is, the profane/imperfect/physically possible version of bayesian reasoning that physical human beings can do] there has to be some sense in which a prior can change in response to arguments/reasoning/reflection, which complicates the issue a lot).
The updated probability, P(Prior|Observation), is called the posterior. There would be less confusion carried by the phrasing “updating on your priors”, but I feel like it’d just collapse back to where it was.
Misusing the term prior is long-held LessWrong tradition
I’m going to put an end to it.
I’m not sure anyone else has the notice when a word has implicit parameters (“prior” practically always does btw) and notice when the binding is ambiguous method yet so I feel it’s my responsibility.