On our fourth rung, a very crucial thing happens.

This meant they must have been closer together in the past.

it's a theory.

This one has no y at all in it.

I'm asking if it's possible.

So, we know what the probability of B given the different values for A, and what we care about in this specific instance is called diagnostic reasoning, which is the inverse of the causal reasoning, the probability of A given B or similarly, probability of A given not B.

We don't care about the test result as much as we care about the fact whether we have cancer or not.

Now I want to talk about approximate inference by means of sampling.

I will not speculate as to what might have happened.

There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

Generally I think there are what I mean by that is, boil things down to their fundamental truths and reason up from there, as opposed to reasoning by analogy.

We're born problem solvers.

So hopefully you found that helpful, and we're going to build on this later on in some of our inferential statistics.

His expression, his manner, his very soul seemed to vary with every fresh part that he assumed.

Well, I do think there's a good framework for thinking.

He wins his arguments by logical reasoning.

They are interested in abstract reasoning.

For every one of every two of these horses, there's one dog.

Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?

I inferred from our conversation that he was unhappy with his job.

Or maybe they were wrong simply because they were reasoning carelessly from the total body of their evidence.

I have a theory, but the, uh...

And numbers in between give you the gray levels of uncertainty.

You might have heard about Bayes Rule before.

So this unit is a tough one.

I think that really leads nowhere.

But with that as sort of the base and that idea of working memory, they've then sort of extrapolated that and said, let's talk about something that they call enhanced working memory.

Y is either zero or one, but if you are using

Are your assumptions valid and supported by facts?

It also provides us, with a, a toolbox comprising powerful reasoning patterns that include, for example, conditioning on new forms of evidence.

I know what she wants us to do with those minutes, she wants us to spend them playing games.

But thinking is really very straightforward it's just sort of some kind of logical reasoning, or something.

What data and observations did you filter in as a result of your beliefs, and why?

David Patterson. This is a very, very good book.

I read detective stories exclusively.

You're not giving me a lot of information.

But I guess, since someone else sold it for 1.5 million,

There are many guesses about how language began, but the fact is that no one really knows.

Cosmic Egg.

I'm unable to deduce without a firsthand examination.

The recommendation from my boss made all the difference.

All this story about showing the open door has no effect on this.

That's one theory, and then the argument against it goes, well, no, if that was the case, then you would want the black spot even further back along its you'd want the spot way far away from the body.

What I wanna do next is take a step back, and be explicit about three assumptions, three biases that we made when we did this analysis of Merge Short, and interpreted the results.

(Laughter)