PRESENTATION SCRIPT

A. General Objections to Bayesianism

Let’s start off with general objections about Bayesianism.
The first one is assumption of logical omniscience. Critics say that the Bayesian axiom
implies that we must have logical omniscience or the state of knowing or believing all
logical truths. This is problematic since this is literally impossible for us humans to do.
Humans simply don't have the processing power to meet Bayesian standards of
probabilistic coherence even for simple cases. ‘Di natin keri

The second one is on the descriptive accuracy of Bayesian conception of scientific

reasoning. Bayesianism is not used in scientific practice. Most scientists don't think of their
work in terms of degrees of belief at all. Belief doesn't seem to have the kind of role in
science that the Bayesians suggest it should have. But for me naman, I think we use
Bayesian concepts in our every day life pero ‘di lang siguro tayo aware na it’s a thing. Like, I
think naman we all have some degree of updating our beliefs when new info comes in.

B. Problem of Old Evidence

This is the most long-standing worry lodged at Bayesians, and it was first asked by Clark
Gleymour in 1980.

Suppose a hypothesis H is proposed which turns out to explain some already well-known data
E. Can H ever be confirmed by E? What do you guys think? Obviously, yes it can diba?

We can observe many, many examples demonstrating this in the field of science. It’s not really
controversial to say that scientific theories can be confirmed by facts that are already known.
Just to name two very famous examples:

1. Newton's theory (H) could explain Kepler's planetary motion (E) and how tides behave
(E).
2. Einstein’s General Relativity (H) is supported by the perihelion precession of Mercury (E).

So, ano ‘yung issue rito? Let’s go back to the Bayes’ Theorem.

Don’t worry, kahit ako hindi ko pa masyadong maintindihan ‘yung mga math parts ng topic na ‘to
haha pero ang mahalaga lang na i-observe ay ‘yung denominator kung saan nakalagay si
probability of evidence.

So, basically kung alam na natin dati pa ang isang established piece of evidence, we’ll have to
assign it a probability value of 1 kaya kung old evidence, magiging 1 ‘yung denominator. If the
denominator is 1, tapos ‘yung taas din ay 1 edi parang walang nangyayari.

Old Evidence has 0 power to confirm the hypothesis because the prior probability is getting
multiplied by 1 over 1. The prior probability (which is ‘yung before evidence) is guaranteed to
stay the same as the posterior probability (after evidence).

Reponses of Bayesians to POE

 1. The subjective probability of the evidence is not to be considered against one's actual
background knowledge of the world.
So, basically, ang sinasabi nila is you have to imagine a world in which the evidence is
not yet known tapos ‘yun ‘yung magiging basehan mo when giving the P(E) a probability
value. This is called a counterfactual condition.
So, for example, balik tayo dun sa example ng Newton’s Theory. In a world where
Kepler’s planetary motion ceases to exist, what would be your degrees of belief for
Newton’s theory? You basically just have to play what-if’s. And dun din naccriticize ang
rebuttal na ‘to kasi parang ang hirap naman ievaluate ‘yung paniniwala mo about
something na hindi naman totoo, iniimagine mo lang?
2. It's not the evidence that really confirms the hypothesis when the evidence is already
in, it's the fact that the hypothesis implies the evidence.
Okay well & good na ganun, but the problem is sometimes, the fact the hypothesis
entails the evidence is itself already known na rin (hence, the Old Evidence issue again)

C. Tolerance for Subjectivity

According sa lecturer dun sa vids, “subjectivity is the s-word in science” daw haha diba kasi in
science, usually deemphasized ang subjective views in favor or objectivity in order to reduce
quote-unquote biases. Kailangan dapat maging objective. So hindi ba objective ang
Bayesianism? Hindi naman sa ganun.

One unique thing talaga about the Bayesian Theorem is the freedom it gives to us to evaluate
our own personal and subjective degrees of belief. It’s one of its core principles. So as long as
coherent ang lahat ng beliefs mo, almost anything goes talaga.

Kung para sa’yo hindi totoo na may pandemya, pwede raw under Bayesianism ahaha basta nag-
aalign lang din siya sa iba mong beliefs.

Pero ayun nga, because of this leeway, Bayesians are questioned as to how it can ever be
scientifically rational kung pwedeng magkaka-iba-iba kayo ng paniniwala.

Well, despite all that subjectivity, Bayesians think they can reach scientific agreement. The
initial subjectivity, they argue, starts to disappear when enough good evidence comes in (aka
washing out or swamping of prior probabilities).

Pero hindi ba’t parang medyo wishful thinking ang ganito? It’s kind of too idealistic to believe
that "if perfect evidence comes in and if two people agree on how the evidence bears on the
theory, then they'll come to agreement." So, ‘yung isang criticism about Bayesianism.

Bayesian’s Response to Subjectivity Issue

So ano ‘yung response nila sa objection na ‘to?

If Bayesianism will be used as a theory of scientific reasoning, many people think it needs to
make room for scientific constraints on the values that get plugged into the equation.
The idea is to use evidence and scientific value to impose substantive constraints. Basically,
we have to tweak Bayesianism until it becomes a scientifically informed version of itself. This is
called tempered personalism.

1. The P of E given the H is usually well-behaved.

2. The prior probability of the hypothesis can be tempered as well, but to a particular
extent only (moderately well-behaved).
3. The least-behaved is the denominator, the probability of evidence apart from the
hypothesis.
• Dahil nga makulit siya at mahirap i-tweak o lagyan ng scientific constraint, the
denominator is usually the one that is given a subjective interpretation.

Competitor of Bayesianism: Classical Statistics

So in defense of subjectivity, Kuhn has said that a certain amount of subjectivity is healthy for
science (like it has brought about some paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions in the past).
Bayesians obviously subscribe to this notion, and they argue that other approaches involve
subjective factors but tend not to admit it. Kaya nga S-word of science daw ang subjectivity.

So isang example daw ng ayaw umamin ay ang classical statistics, one of Bayesian statistics’
major competitors. Basically, it’s the stat that we usually learn in our typical statistics classes:
have a null hypothesis that you will reject or fail to reject based on some threshold such as the
5% threshold (the alpha level). CS and this 5% alpha level thing became really popular even if it’s
kind of just arbitrary because it’s objective pero hindi naman sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay
nagamit ito nang tama → which sabi rin ni Kasser leading to bad science. Bayesians argue that
classical statistics has to admit that they cannot attach probabilities to hypotheses, only rules
to reject.

Conclusion

So, I think that concludes our presentation.

Lastly, we prepared a self-paced Kahoot quiz just to serve as a review for what we discussed
today. We decided to make it self-paced instead of real-time to be inclusive to people who
maybe don’t have the stable internet connection to join a game in real-time. Tsaka hassle pa
‘yon hahaha. You can answer it by yourself until April 20, which is ‘yung expiration date ng quiz.
The game pin is on the screen, but we’ll put it on our Course Notes docs as well. ‘Yun lang.
Thank you so much for listening!