Here the author of How to Solve It explains how to become a "good guesser." Marked by G. Polya's simple, energetic prose and use of clever examples from a wide range of human activities, this two-volume work explores techniques of guessing, inductive reasoning, and reasoning by analogy, and the role they play in the most rigorous of deductive disciplines.
what a great book! Really enjoyed how it gives a very intuitive introduction to both frequentist and Bayesian approach to probability and applies it in a very wise manner to a diversity of problem-solving issues. I think I myself started thinking in categories of plausibility evaluating, for example, results I obtain in further mathematical methods problems
In defense of subjective probability. I’ve been pondering the phenomenon, and it goes something like this: we go through university being taught a frequentist perspective, which involves deriving hypotheses from data collected, accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis, and accumulating information. But what if there is another perspective which does not deal with data as a prior, as a given set from which you deduct your hypothesis? This is the logic of plausible reasoning. It's uncomfortable from the frequentist point of view. How do you determine the priors? Who is to say if they are correct? biased? is it too subjective? . . . Here, Polya argues poetically for the potential for plausible reasoning to have rigour and leverage subjectivity. I think this is an incredible book. I highly recommend it if you are interested in Bayesianism or conditional probability.