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?
ciaran haines
Karma: 5
- ciaran haines 29 Dec 2025 16:18 UTC2 points0in reply to: rotatingpaguro’s comment on: Good if make prior after data instead of before
Many countries have laws against “grooming” children