These slides were written ten years ago, I bet the World will not stop spinning if they remain in their current state.

]]>The point is that, due to the truncation of the original statement, Laplace has become the amateur, it is not Bayes anymore! As a professor at Ecole militaire, Ecole normale, etc., Laplace was definitely not an amateur but a professionnal, academic scientist. On the contrary, as a reverend, by definition Bayes was an amateur, just like another well-known probabilist and mathematician, Pierre de Fermat, who used to work as a lawyer for a living. Here https://xianblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/jaynes-re-read/, you correctly states that the amateur is Bayes, not Laplace, according to Jaynes’ original statement. I would understand your (sic!) for Laplace, but I don’t understand it for Bayes, “amateur” seems perfectly suitable (and not pejorative). Anyway, it would be good to correct the truncated quotation so as to make Bayes the amateur, not Laplace.

]]>I do not get the point. Do you object to my (sic!)?

]]>inference.” (p.112). ]]>