Talk:Edwin Thompson Jaynes
|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Physics / Biographies||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
This: "He was one of the first to interpret probability theory as an extension of Aristotelian logic" seems to be wrong. Probability theory as logic was an old idea even when Jaynes started writing on this subject in (I presume) the 50's. It's present in Boole (whom Jaynes criticizes) in the 19th century (and possibly in de Morgan, I would have to check), and it is explicitly the view of Keynes (who was the main inspiration for Richard Cox, who is one of the main inspirations for Jaynes). It's better the just state that this was how he approached probabilities. It wasn't a new idea (although Jaynes certainly makes it sound as though it was). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The last few lines of this article seem to be rather POV:
"His last book Probability Theory: The Logic of Science gathers together multiple threads of modern thinking regarding Bayesian probability and statistical inference, tying them into a powerful and coherent whole.
"He also illuminates the inconsistencies, inefficiencies and limitations of other techniques, but builds his argument on comparison of results, side-stepping the rhetoric that has mired such discussion in the past. "
Might they be improved by dumping the last paragraph, and the last statement of the previous one? Ben Cairns 23:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I should prefer that they be rephrased for neutrality. The sentences in question certainly describe what Jaynes tried to do. The question of his success is, of course, a matter of opinion. -- Cyan 23:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Good point. Done, I think. Ben Cairns 00:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Very nice. -- Cyan 02:57, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)