晚2130 逛書店 猶豫要不要買 鄭板橋 只因其中稱台灣為省
買Passionate Minds 和德希達 無賴
散步 去法學院取2今周刊 主提是foxconn 很無趣 2月前目標143元 現在.....
晚上讀The Japan Journals: 1947-2004 《日本日記》Donald Richie
此為佳作 相當感人 雖然譯本有些不習慣 跳著看 許多生與"死ㄅ"之趣味(如青年在Kamakura 圓覺寺對面的宿舍的創作......)和悲哀 ("新天皇"的登車儀式.....三島/川康的生死 朋友之死 小人物文夫 之弟的喪禮......) 他與賴世和對日本文化的了解與接受.....在在令人沉思
David Kerridge 教授的兩封信都貼在台灣戴明圈
托克維爾 (Alexis de Tocqueville)
Alexis de Tocqueville: French politician and writer of the classic Democracy in America (1805-1859)
美國的民主 上下 秦修明譯 香港:今日世界1966
歲末懷念友人： Jean-Marie Gogue
上周，接到法國友人 Jean-Marie Gogue的賀卡（12 月10 日寄出）。注意到郵花改變相當多：Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59) 價碼為0.9歐元。)
下午錦坤要來，就拿出王昭華的 CD 《一: 首張台語創作專籍》。Ken 已買《七大冊 戴震全集》和一本段玉裁文集
周作人《讀 《檀弓》》1937年1月撰 發表於1927年 收入《秉燭談》
Thanks for the information about Joyce Orsini's forthcoming book, and
the review of the book on Bayes Theorem.
I think that there is a lot more to be discovered about Bayes Theorem.
It is certainly a very important practical tool. For example, my email
is scanned for spam by a programme based on Bayes Theorem. But I rather
suspect it is not being used correctly - and still works.
In 1964 I was a Research Fellow, and two of us were investigating
methods of medical diagnosis. In other words, trying to develop
statistical rules for guessing what illness a patient is suffering from,
based on a limited number of tests or symptoms.
We found a paper, written by a computer scientist, that claimed to use
Bayes Theorem in medical diagnosis. But his method did not allow for the
obvious fact that different symptoms are not statistically independent.
We were shocked at such ignorance, and misuse of statistical theory. So
we set out to compare all the best methods we could find, including new
ones we developed ourselves, based on multivariate logistic analysis,
and another based on comparing each case with all the data in a
Sad to say, the "wrong" method, based on bad theory, worked at least as
well as the other methods, though which worked best, for a particular
disease, depended on the sample size available. Ours was better for
It seems that a simple, even a wrong model, can equal or sometimes beat
a better model with fewer parameters. I later found out that Norman
Bailey, at Oxford, had discovered the same thing in a different problem
(multiple regression), but found it so shocking that he did not publish
The point I am making is that "correct theory" does not guarantee better
results in practice, and vice versa. Statistical theory hasn't caught up
with this fact yet, as far as I know.
I will try to explain the difference between the way Sir Harold Jeffreys
and W Edwards Deming *used* probability, which tells you more than what
they say. But it will take time, as I like to be thorough.