I A controversial application of Bayesian reasoning

p78653
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
The gain in odds that aliens are visiting Earth (A) due to ##n## independent reports of close encounters (C) is given by:
$$\frac{\rm Odds(A|C)}{\rm Odds(A)}=\left[\frac{\rm Prob(C|A)}{\rm Prob(C|\bar A)}\right]^n.$$
Let us assume that we have good cases such that an alien explanation (##a##) is as likely as a non-alien explanation (##\bar a##):
$$\rm Prob(C\ \&\ a) = Prob(C\ \&\ \bar a).$$
Therefore
$$\rm \frac{Prob(C|A)}{Prob(C|\bar A)}=\frac{Prob(C\ \&\ \bar a)+Prob(C\ \&\ a)}{Prob(C\ \&\ \bar a)}=2.$$
Thus the gain in odds that aliens are visiting Earth is given by
$$\frac{\rm Odds(A|C)}{\rm Odds(A)}=2^n.$$
Accordingly we only need ##50## good cases of close encounters to raise the odds by a factor of ##10^{15}## which will overpower any reasonable prior bias against alien visitation.

Is this analysis correct?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy, Vanadium 50 and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
p78653 said:
Is this analysis correct?
No matter whether the application of Bayes' theorem is correct, the analysis is sensible only if we are allowed the assumption that "we have good cases such that an alien explanation (##a##) is as likely as a non-alien explanation (##\bar a##)" .

That assumption is inherently speculative so this thread violates the long-standing forum rule about UFO speculation and has been closed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Agent Smith, Vanadium 50 and Dale
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top