I don’t think it is, at all, any more than Daryl Bem’s research updates me towards thinking ESP is real.
This strikes me as a misunderstanding of how Bayesian updates work. The reason you still don’t believe in ESP is because your prior for ESP is very low. But I think hearing about Bem’s research should still cause you to update your estimate in favor of ESP a tiny amount. In a world with ESP, Bem finds it easier to discover ESP effects.
if you think that the scientists would have published these papers regardless of their truth
I don’t think social psychologists are that dishonest. Even 36% replicability suggests some relationship between paper-publishing and truth.
Furthermore, I think the fact that social psychologists are so liberal should cause some update in the direction that studying humans causes you to realize liberal views about human nature are correct.
This strikes me as a misunderstanding of how Bayesian updates work. The reason you still don’t believe in ESP is because your prior for ESP is very low. But I think hearing about Bem’s research should still cause you to update your estimate in favor of ESP a tiny amount. In a world with ESP, Bem finds it easier to discover ESP effects.
I think you slightly misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that Bem’s work isn’t really a Bayesian update for me, because I think Bem is approximately as likely to publish papers in the world where (extremely weak) ESP works as the worlds where it doesn’t. The strength of my prior doesn’t feel relevant to me.
I think you’re right that I slightly overstated my case.
I think you’re overstating your case.
This strikes me as a misunderstanding of how Bayesian updates work. The reason you still don’t believe in ESP is because your prior for ESP is very low. But I think hearing about Bem’s research should still cause you to update your estimate in favor of ESP a tiny amount. In a world with ESP, Bem finds it easier to discover ESP effects.
I don’t think social psychologists are that dishonest. Even 36% replicability suggests some relationship between paper-publishing and truth.
Furthermore, I think the fact that social psychologists are so liberal should cause some update in the direction that studying humans causes you to realize liberal views about human nature are correct.
I think you slightly misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that Bem’s work isn’t really a Bayesian update for me, because I think Bem is approximately as likely to publish papers in the world where (extremely weak) ESP works as the worlds where it doesn’t. The strength of my prior doesn’t feel relevant to me.
I think you’re right that I slightly overstated my case.