b34k3r on Nostr: Baysean inference is based on probability. It’s hard to be 100% certain of anything ...
Baysean inference is based on probability. It’s hard to be 100% certain of anything so you weight EVERYTHING you can think of on both sides of the issue. This is different to the normal scientific publications (with some exceptions) but often drives scientific thinking and consensus but isn’t communicated well. Sean Carroll has some good podcasts about it.
It allows for opinion, skeptics, qualitative data, popular belief can also be included but you need to be careful about bias. You hold all beliefs as potentially true but try and weight them. Weight can be based on, for example -how qualified the person is to make the claim (so CNN and FOX could be low) and how biased they might be (CNN and FOX -not doing well here).
You add up all the weights and it gives you a probability of something being true or false. You then update the probability as new evidence comes in. The important bit is you can include anything - you just need to give it an agreed weight. Even if people completely disagree it’s a helpful way to open discussions as the assumption starts that all information adds value.
For example flat earth (numbers are just for fun)…
I look around me and it looks flat (99.999999% weighted flat)
I bump into someone with a telescope and say they think the earth is round (I still think my senses are correct but they seam convinced and the sun/moon are round so maybe I give it a little weight - 99.99999% flat)
I read that a lot of people think the earth is round (ok sheep -99.9999% flat)
I see a photo from the moon that the earth is round (fake I don’t trust the government I’m increasing my weight now -99.999999% flat)
I start using gps and a lot of really smart people are making cool stuff I like. They say it only works if the earth is round (hmmm - I think - how can they get this tech so good but get that so wrong - it still looks flat 99% flat)
I see a YouTube video of someone who presents a flat earth theory that lots of people have liked and my Twitter feed confirms a lot of people hold this view (back to 99.99% flat)
I start to learn some physics and i see how some formulas can predict motion and explain a “theory” of how it the earth might be round (still looks flat but ok I’ll go 95% flat)
I go up in an airplane and actually the horizon is kinda curved (90% flat)
I go in a space ship fly around the earth land on the moon - look back at the earth and update my probability (0.0001% flat).
GPT5 unifies quantum and general relativity and points out that the 4th dimension (time) just gives the illusion of curved space and that actually the universe is all flat (99.999999% flat)
Note it’s never 0%. The probability can go up and down. It’s also not about being right or wrong - just trying to agree on the weighting.
What you do with the probability then is up for debate but at least there is some agreement on the problem. For climate it might be helpful to think about:
1. Low probability + low risk = don’t sweat
2. High probability + low risk = we can deal with it
3. Low probability + high risk = better do something -just in case
4. High probability + high risk = better act fast
You can do the math but it’s actually something you can do in your head. What people usually find hard (me inc) is weighting esp when considering my own bias and I tend to overweight other people that agree with my stance. So you need to talk to people who you don’t agree with. You need to not fully trust anyone -including yourself.
It allows for opinion, skeptics, qualitative data, popular belief can also be included but you need to be careful about bias. You hold all beliefs as potentially true but try and weight them. Weight can be based on, for example -how qualified the person is to make the claim (so CNN and FOX could be low) and how biased they might be (CNN and FOX -not doing well here).
You add up all the weights and it gives you a probability of something being true or false. You then update the probability as new evidence comes in. The important bit is you can include anything - you just need to give it an agreed weight. Even if people completely disagree it’s a helpful way to open discussions as the assumption starts that all information adds value.
For example flat earth (numbers are just for fun)…
I look around me and it looks flat (99.999999% weighted flat)
I bump into someone with a telescope and say they think the earth is round (I still think my senses are correct but they seam convinced and the sun/moon are round so maybe I give it a little weight - 99.99999% flat)
I read that a lot of people think the earth is round (ok sheep -99.9999% flat)
I see a photo from the moon that the earth is round (fake I don’t trust the government I’m increasing my weight now -99.999999% flat)
I start using gps and a lot of really smart people are making cool stuff I like. They say it only works if the earth is round (hmmm - I think - how can they get this tech so good but get that so wrong - it still looks flat 99% flat)
I see a YouTube video of someone who presents a flat earth theory that lots of people have liked and my Twitter feed confirms a lot of people hold this view (back to 99.99% flat)
I start to learn some physics and i see how some formulas can predict motion and explain a “theory” of how it the earth might be round (still looks flat but ok I’ll go 95% flat)
I go up in an airplane and actually the horizon is kinda curved (90% flat)
I go in a space ship fly around the earth land on the moon - look back at the earth and update my probability (0.0001% flat).
GPT5 unifies quantum and general relativity and points out that the 4th dimension (time) just gives the illusion of curved space and that actually the universe is all flat (99.999999% flat)
Note it’s never 0%. The probability can go up and down. It’s also not about being right or wrong - just trying to agree on the weighting.
What you do with the probability then is up for debate but at least there is some agreement on the problem. For climate it might be helpful to think about:
1. Low probability + low risk = don’t sweat
2. High probability + low risk = we can deal with it
3. Low probability + high risk = better do something -just in case
4. High probability + high risk = better act fast
You can do the math but it’s actually something you can do in your head. What people usually find hard (me inc) is weighting esp when considering my own bias and I tend to overweight other people that agree with my stance. So you need to talk to people who you don’t agree with. You need to not fully trust anyone -including yourself.