This is not intuitive to me. It seems like a "new idea" is something that (almost by definition) isn't in the training set. Can you elaborate a bit?

Edit: but perhaps a good model could arise from training, which would be a good idea in the sense that parsimonious ideas are good scientific ideas.

I get a similar ick when I hear someone say "I enjoy consuming this type of content." They're not selling anything, but they are still adopting the soulless language. Like, if it still exists after you interact with it, you haven't consumed anything. Second, do you really see yourself this way? Why not just say "I love to read travel blogs"?

Calculated frequency is a point-estimate of bias. A Bayesian estimate is a distribution of belief over possible values of the bias, integrating all available information.

They propose a bet. If they flip it 100 times and the proportion of heads is within [0.4, 0.6], you win $100. If it's not, you pay $100. Do you take that bet?

Explanation: absent the magic store scenario, a `rational' person would take the bet. Your prior belief is that most coins are roughly unbiased. Given that they walked out of a magic store, you now have additional information. Maybe the coin is a trick coin. In that case, your belief that the coin is unbiased should be weaker, even if you don't know which direction the coin is biased in.

This illustrates two things: one, additional information (magic store) can update your beliefs. Two, a strong prior and a weak prior, in this case about the coin's bias, can lead to materially different decisions.

The WSJ has had a string of such apologetics lately. I know because family members keep sending them to me.

Another example:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/european-soccer-fans-marvel-at-t...

1. experiences. Intuition comes from experiences, and IMO an under-appreciated amount of 'education' is building strong intuitions. Experiences can include project work (including struggling!), travel & reading (what it's like to be someone else), sports and music (what it's like to build skills over time and work as a team).

2. practice. So much of what we can do - from language to mathematics - is a composition of rote behaviors, responses, and habits. It's impossible to become skilled without practice.

3. building habits of mind. This includes scientific thinking, applying mental models (I like this list here: https://fs.blog/mental-models/), pro-social behavior (listening, conversing). Much of science & math is having an available set of mental models, understanding how/where to apply them, and recognizing when a new one is needed.

My preference would be for traditional subjects to be taught with these firmly in mind: when thinking about biology, for example, what are the rote skills that must be learned? What intuitions should students achieve, and what experiences will enable them? What habits of mind produce an orientation, attitude, or set of thought processes conducive to practicing the science and art of biology?

I think this doesn't contradict the author.

On the other hand, perhaps this is just responsibility laundering on behalf of the tech orgs.

In other words, no camera exists that has great computational photography and a lens bigger than your thumbnail. Why?