Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
js,
- If you're referring to, This ratio, the relative likelihood ratio, is called the “Bayes Factor.” , P(E|H) is not a ratio. It's one piece of the ratio.
Click to expand...

No, I was not. I was referring to: "Just as JayUtah indicated, it is a probability, not a likelihood. "

P(E|H) is the probability of E given H.

ETA: And the text, "This ratio, the relative likelihood ratio, is called the 'Bayes Factor'," does not even appear in our post referenced by mine. It almost seems you are intentional in this obfuscation.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Explain?
Click to expand...

See, literally, this entire thread. You haven't done a single thing today to progress the discussion. You've just thrown meaningless questions back at your critics for clarification or repetition.

Quit stalling. Yesterday you told us you would answer questions if we gave them to you. I gave you the questions. Now answer them or admit you were lying yesterday when you said you would do your best to answer.
 
Jabba said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

For the reasons already given at length in this thread. Data in the form of your current existence does nothing to discriminate between materialism or reincarnation. This is why you've been trying to sneak the speculative consequents of reincarnation in as additional data. Unfortunately, using "data" you speculate might arise if reincarnation were the case, and purporting to use it to show why reincarnation better explains that data than materialism, is a pretty textbook case of circular reasoning.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
In Bayes' theorem, for P(A|B) = ( P(B|A)/P(B) ) * P(A), the quantity in red is sometimes call the likelihood ratio, or, as jt512 termed it, "the weight of the evidence."
Click to expand...

jabba,
A question you should be asking yourself is "likelihood of what?" It doesn't say. It doesn't say because it is assumed to be obvious, but you have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
posterior probability is proportional to likelihood X prior probability​
That's Bayes Theorem distilled to its essence, but all the "of what's" have been omitted. In a more wordy form:
posterior probability of H is proportional to likelihood of H given E X prior probability of H​
 
Jabba said:
- I gotta admit that I don't know why "likelihood" is the wrong word. What word should I be using?
Click to expand...

Do you actually know what your argument is?
When you use technical language you should understand its basic usage.

In frequency statistics the term likelihood is used.
Which you would know if you Googled probability vs. likelihood.

I am sorry Jabba, most of your discussion seems to go like this, you abuse formulas and technical language and then ask other people to do your research for you.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Can anyone take a stab at calculating exactly how many nested excuse hair-split special pleadings we are away from Jabba actually proving immortality using Bayesian statistics at this point?

It's got to at least be in the double digits.
Click to expand...

Frequency statistics would say that the likelihood is zero.
:D
 
jsfisher said:
You may find the link in this post useful:
Click to expand...

Someone, possibly Jabba, posted that link before. The author is clueless. It's no wonder that experimental psychology is in such trouble.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No, I was not. I was referring to: "Just as JayUtah indicated, it is a probability, not a likelihood. "

P(E|H) is the probability of E given H.

ETA: And the text, "This ratio, the relative likelihood ratio, is called the 'Bayes Factor'," does not even appear in our post referenced by mine. It almost seems you are intentional in this obfuscation.
Click to expand...
js,
- That was the last sentence of the linked article.
 
Dancing David said:
Do you actually know what your argument is?
Click to expand...

I don't think he knows what an argument is, much less what his argument is.

I'm not being flippant or snarky. I literally don't think he (or his persona, a distinction I have no care to keep making at this point) has a firm grasp on how... arguments or debates work on any level. The simple fact that his amazing patented effective debate is such a smoke and mirrors nonsense act shows how little he understands the concept on any level.
 
jsfisher said:
jabba,
A question you should be asking yourself is "likelihood of what?" It doesn't say. It doesn't say because it is assumed to be obvious, but you have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
posterior probability is proportional to likelihood X prior probability​
That's Bayes Theorem distilled to its essence, but all the "of what's" have been omitted. In a more wordy form:
posterior probability of H is proportional to likelihood of H given E X prior probability of H​
Click to expand...
js,
- But, the formula I'm using
P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+ P(E|~H)P(~H))
​
- indicates the posterior probability of one of two complementary hypotheses. Is there something wrong with that formula? If not, you seem to be saying that P(E|H) should be called the probability of the event -- given the particular hypothesis. Is that right?
 
Jabba said:
...indicates the posterior probability of one of two complementary hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Your hypotheses are not complementary. You have materialism on one hand and reincarnation on the other Those don't cover all the bases. Nor does "a hypothesis that covers all the bases" fix your problem.

...Is there something wrong with that formula?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with the formula itself. You're just applying it to a problem it doesn't fit because you don't have complementary hypotheses.

you seem to be saying that P(E|H) should be called the probability of the event -- given the particular hypothesis. Is that right?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what he said. Stop shoving words into other people's mouths.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
js,
- But, the formula I'm using
P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+ P(E|~H)P(~H))
​
Click to expand...

What do you think is different in any substantive way?

Bayes Theorem is P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H) / P(E).
P(E|H)/P(E) is the likelihood ratio.
P(E) is equal to P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

Do you not see how it is the same thing as what you continually foist?

You have shown us that despite your claims to the contrary you knowledge of statistics is weak. Now you are showing us that your facility with basic algebra is also weak.

You are digging a hole, and you know what they say about that.

- indicates the posterior probability of one of two complementary hypotheses. Is there something wrong with that formula? If not, you seem to be saying that P(E|H) should be called the probability of the event -- given the particular hypothesis. Is that right?
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to say that P(E|H) is the probability of E given H?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom