- I still think that my priors are generous in favor of the H side. The following are a couple more sites that I think support my suspicion.
- http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
- https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
- I just figure that we should be open-minded enough to accept that atheists just might be missing something -- especially, when a lot of scientists are not atheists and do think that the atheists are missing something.
- So far, I can't figure out why I'm wrong about immortality, but have to suspect that I am, since it would seem that no "official" Statistician has ever proposed what I am.
- I'm hoping that the explanation is that official Statisticians tend to be too analytic to believe in transcendence and to thereby think to apply Bayes to it. And, whereas Many "Scientists" seem to accept transcendence, maybe the same is not true re Statisticians -- and then, most scientists aren't familiar enough with Bayesian Statistics in order to notice (what I think are) the implications ...
- http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
- https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
- I just figure that we should be open-minded enough to accept that atheists just might be missing something -- especially, when a lot of scientists are not atheists and do think that the atheists are missing something.
- So far, I can't figure out why I'm wrong about immortality, but have to suspect that I am, since it would seem that no "official" Statistician has ever proposed what I am.
- I'm hoping that the explanation is that official Statisticians tend to be too analytic to believe in transcendence and to thereby think to apply Bayes to it. And, whereas Many "Scientists" seem to accept transcendence, maybe the same is not true re Statisticians -- and then, most scientists aren't familiar enough with Bayesian Statistics in order to notice (what I think are) the implications ...
Last edited: