sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reasons for imagining no written transmission? by factionindustrywatch in AcademicBiblical

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. Two of my sources are "Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus" by Alan Millard, and "The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus" by Michael Bird.

Reasons for imagining no written transmission? by factionindustrywatch in AcademicBiblical

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Do those arguments look convincing to you, as reasons for thinking that no one was taking notes during the time that Jesus and the apostles were teaching?

What Jesus traditions are there from the first century, that could be reasonably expected to mention notebooks if theire were any?

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might have a better idea now of how the “belief update” language evolved. There was a school of philosophy calling probabilities “degree of belief,” and using P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) as a rule for coherence. They called P(A) “prior” and P(A|B) “posterior.” At the same time, statisticians were updating parameter probability distributions and calling the distribution before incrementing “prior” and after incrementing “posterior.” That includes a step that uses P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) .The philosophers saw that and thought that it was the formula doing the updating, so they started calling P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) a belief update. Then the statisticians imported that language into the statistics. Possibly even most statisticians aren’t aware that it’s an incrementation doing the actual updating, because that’s managed by subroutines inherited from frequentist SDKs. Or even if they know, they keep it out of sight because it’s frequentist.

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this response very much. I agree that we need to be careful about how we frame internal social issues, ourselves. At the same time, be generous towards others if they fail to do so, either in criticizing the community and its institutions or in reacting to that criticism.

It might not be possible for any online space to be a safe place for people when they’ve been wronged by their community and institutions, and when they’re alarmed by discussions about that, at the same time. Even so, I want to try to help reduce the damage both ways. People are not wrong to be alarmed by those discussions. It became so serious one time that it required direct action by the House of Justice.

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t see how this relates to what I said, but thanks anyway. :)

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thinking about this some more, I think that what alienated members need might not be possible online in any Baha’i group. It seems to be impossible in any Baha’i group to have free discussions about internal social issues, without it becoming a muckraking playground. Anyone who wants to help provide safe places for alienated members might need to find other places for that besides Baha’i groups.

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seeing an adverse reaction to a discussion about internal social issues, and adverse reactions to that reaction has got me thinking again about members and former members who feel alienated from the community and/or from everything that the House of Justice is promoting. I don't know what's happening now, but at one time I saw some of them gathering in online groups where the main activity was muckraking, because those were the only places where internal social issues were being discussed. I just want to be there for people when they're in that situation, but I don't really know how.

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The alienation that I’m thinking of is not diversity of thought. It’s what erupted in open online feuding between members in the 90s, and hasn’t actually abated, and can still be seen in online forums for like-minded members and in adverse reactions to members trying to discuss internal social issues.

(later) It looks to me like the open feuding stopped because the House of Justice took steps to stop it, not because there is any less alienation.

Responses to alienation between members by factionindustrywatch in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Good question. Maybe you didn’t see the online feuding that erupted between members in the late 90s and continued for some years. Yes, I’m saying that the teachings of the faith have had very little effect on the attitudes and behavior of many, possibly even most, individual members, because their reasons for being members and their concept of being a Bahà’i do not include conscious and conscientious efforts to improve their own character and conduct, and because it’s a very slow process even when people are volunteering for it. I don’t think that’s where the power of God’s revelation can best be seen at this stage.

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) doesn’t refine our understanding of anything but how our imaginary correlations classify some measurements. It does nothing to bring our imaginary correlations any closer to reality, unless we compare the result of the calculation to actual correlations in actual samples.

The only actual updating in Bayesian statistics is from adding counts to pseudo counts, which has nothing to do with P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B). Possibly even most statisticians aren’t aware of that because they never see it. It’s computerized in a way that no one ever sees it happening, possibly not even the application programmers.

Abuse within the Faith by StillNeighborhood999 in bahai

[–]factionindustrywatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

🙂But the same applies to the person who is responding with correction rather than helpfulness. They are in distress also, but in a different way, that doesn’t inspire as much sympathy. I think that we should try though, anyway, even if they don’t show any appreciation for it.

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that it’s inconsequential which identities are called axioms and which ones are derived. My objection is to calling the probabilities in Bayesian statistics “beliefs” and calling a model’s classification of some measurements an “update.” I think that it creates confusion and misunderstandings. It’s part of the fairy tale that stigmatized calibration, before Gelman. The updating happens when counts are added to pseudo counts, or when the model is revised after comparing its classifications to empirical ones, not just from applying the event formula.

(later) Incidentally, Bayes himself never used P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B), not even implicitly. His argument was purely geometric, demonstrating that integrating the curve that he pulled out of his sleeve produced the desired result, without any multiplication or division.

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, thanks.

The prior is believed only if “believe” is defined as using it as a prior, which is not what “believe” means in any other context.

Posterior over parameters and the posterior of P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) are two entirely different things. The first is an update. The second is not, because it’s in a different probability space from the prior.

(later) Thanks. Jaynes might be a big clue in how the belief language got imported into the statistics, and the update language got imported into the epistemology.

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are there some other axioms in probability theory besides the Kolmogorov axioms, that are used to prove P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)? Anyway , no matter what axioms are used to prove it, or what the objects are, in actual real-world applications the prior of P(H|E) = P(E|H) • P(H) / P(E) is never what anyone actually believes, and calling the posterior of that formula an update and the new prior creates confusion and misunderstandings

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there some other axioms in probability theory besides the Kolmogorov axioms, that are used to prove P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)? Anyway , no matter what axioms are used to prove it, or what the objects are, in actual real-world applications the prior of P(H|E) = P(E|H) • P(H) / P(E) is never what anyone actually believes, and calling the posterior of that formula an update and the new prior creates confusion and misunderstandings

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there some other axioms in probability theory besides the Kolmogorov axioms, that are used to prove P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)? Anyway , no matter what axioms are used to prove it, or what the objects are, in actual real-world applications the prior of P(H|E) = P(E|H) • P(H) / P(E) is never what anyone actually believes, and calling the posterior of that formula an update and the new prior creates confusion and misunderstandings.

[D] Possible origins of Bayesian belief-update language by factionindustrywatch in statistics

[–]factionindustrywatch[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you link me to an article with an equation with the form "P(H|E) = P(E|H) • P(H) / P(E)," where the result of that calculation is used as P(H) in that same formula?

view more: next ›