[escepticos] modelos y evidencias

[Pedro J. Hdez]

Ahora que estamos en el ajo les recomiendo dos posts --bueno, y el blog 
completo-- de overcoming bias
Ausencia de evidencia es evidencia de ausencia
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html
y
Conservación de la evidencia esperada
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/conservation-of.html
Me ha gustado sobre todo
Si afirmas que dios, con objeto de probar nuestra fe, permanece oculto a 
propósito, cualquiera de los milagros que cita la biblia deben contar 
como evidencias en contra de la existencia de dios.
Respecto a las teorías

For a true Bayesian, it is impossible to seek evidence that /confirms/ a 
theory.  There is no possible plan you can devise, no clever strategy, 
no cunning device, by which you can legitimately expect your confidence 
in a fixed proposition to be higher (on /average/) than before.  You can 
only ever seek evidence to /test/ a theory, not to confirm it.

This realization can take quite a load off your mind.  You need not 
worry about how to interpret every possible experimental result to 
confirm your theory.  You needn't bother planning how to make /any/ 
given iota of evidence confirm your theory, because you know that for 
every expectation of evidence, there is an equal and oppositive 
expectation of counterevidence.  If you try to weaken the 
counterevidence of a possible "abnormal" observation, you can only do it 
by weakening the support of a "normal" observation, to a precisely equal 
and opposite degree.  It is a zero-sum game.  No matter how you connive, 
no matter how you argue, no matter how you strategize, you can't 
possibly expect the resulting game plan to shift your beliefs (on 
average) in a particular direction.

You might as well sit back and relax while you wait for the evidence to 
come in.

...human psychology is /so/ screwed up.

saludos

Pedro J.