1
$\begingroup$

Dave Harris says the following in "Knightian uncertainty versus Black Swan event":

In Bayesian thinking, chance doesn't really exist. What does exist is a system that is too complicated and complex to know enough to make statements that you can be sure are 100% true.

That seems to imply the universe / world (or at least the processes that are being modeled) is deterministic for a Bayesian. Is that a universally or at least widely accepted viewpoint?

For a related question about the frequentist point of view, see "Deterministic or stochastic universe in frequentist statistics?".

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This doesn't imply anything about a Bayesian conception of the universe. Indeed, the whole question appears irrelevant to statistical thinking or practice. $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    May 7, 2021 at 18:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For me, Bayesian reasoning just implies that we are modeling our reasoning through an agent which assigns plausibility to statements and updates those plausibilities according to certain logical coherence axioms. I don't see where in this framework one commits to uncertainty being attributable to a particular source (either uncertainty due to lack of knowledge in in-principle-knowable things or uncertainty due to intrinsic randomness in the universe). $\endgroup$
    – guy
    May 7, 2021 at 19:48
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, it annoys me when authors attempt to speak for all Bayesians (or Frequentists) about what they believe philosophically about uncertainty. In reality, the views among people who call themselves Bayesian are very diverse; there isn't some sacred text from which you can learn "what Bayesians believe." $\endgroup$
    – guy
    May 7, 2021 at 19:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @guy, thank you for helpful comments. I agree with them. My difficulty is that I am only remotely familiar with Bayesian methods and ideas, and so I am trying to figure out what they are. I have no problem with them being diverse if that is the case. I am not advocating any side, just trying to learn. $\endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    May 8, 2021 at 9:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I know from experience that some Bayesian philosophers, statisticians, computer scientists, etc. are very sceptical about any kind of chance or objective probability, but others are not. Some folks just think that Bayesian reasoning is the best way to deal with objective probability in the world. I'll post an answer if I find good illustrations, but in the mean time, here are two potentially relevant starting points from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret, plato.stanford.edu/entries/statistics . $\endgroup$
    – Mars
    Jun 10, 2021 at 23:23

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.