Talk:Base rate fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For instance, appealing to vivid examples should not be taken knowledge of prior probabilities.
I don't understand what this statement means? CSTAR 19:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yea, that makes no sense. I'll fix it in a minute. --Taak 21:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I thought that base rate neglect involved ignoring priors in a Bayesian context. For example, if a medical test with a 5% false positive rate is applied to a population whose background incidence of the disease is, say, 1%, the great majority test results will be faulty: they will indicate disease where there is none. It's not that the medical test is irrelevant though: rather its significance can be overweighed.