▲ | kgwgk 7 hours ago | |
There are a few good explanations already (also less good and very bad) so I give a simple example: You throw a coin five times and I predict the result correctly each time. #1 You say that I have precognition powers, because the probability that I don’t is less than 5% #2 You say that I have precognition powers, because if I didn’t the probability that I would have got the outcomes right is less than 5% #2 is a bad logical conclusion but it’s based on the right interpretation (while #1 is completely wrong): it’s more likely that I was lucky because precognition is very implausible to start with. | ||
▲ | jonahx 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | |
Dead on again. What this and your other comment make clear is that once you start talking about the probability that X is true, especially in the context of hypothesis testing, you've moved (usually unwittingly) into a Bayesian framing, and you better make your priors explicit. |