This idea that understanding something from 1st principles is a burden instead of a good foundation is puzzling to me. The work one does in the abstract is the foundation for the concrete.
>The Bayesian method is the natural approach to inference, yet it is hidden from readers behind chapters of slow, mathematical analysis.
I don't understand the perspective that math hides information, as opposed to the view that it makes understanding possible.
Can you say you truly understand anything if you don't even understand why it works.
Do you understand derivatives by knowing some tables of pairs of functions and some handwavy ideas about slope.
>The Bayesian method is the natural approach to inference, yet it is hidden from readers behind chapters of slow, mathematical analysis.
I don't understand the perspective that math hides information, as opposed to the view that it makes understanding possible.
Can you say you truly understand anything if you don't even understand why it works.
Do you understand derivatives by knowing some tables of pairs of functions and some handwavy ideas about slope.