Curt Adams wrote:
>You do attempt to justify that people *should* have common priors.
>
>"If John and Mary have different priors, then they should realize some
>physical process produced that difference. And if that difference was
>produced randomly or arbitrarily, it is not clear that John and Mary
>should retain it."
>
>That's what I was addressing. If John and Mary do not retain their
>priors, the under most circumstances they aren't acting as rational
>Bayesian agents. That seems a legitimate reason to maintain
>differing priors.
You were addressing updating on the fact that someone else received
the prior they did, not on the fact of yourself receiving the prior
you did. I again point you to: http://hanson.gmu.edu/prior.pdf or .ps
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT