If course, the posterior relative to one piece of evidence can be the prior relative to the next, but usually people are not talking about this sort of sequential setup.
Sure, I suppose. But usually there’s only one piece of evidence being discussed explicitly, and I think it makes little sense to use the word “prior” to refer to the probability that results from updating on it.
Aren’t they (at least implicitly)?
Sure, I suppose. But usually there’s only one piece of evidence being discussed explicitly, and I think it makes little sense to use the word “prior” to refer to the probability that results from updating on it.