This question is a follow up to my earlier question here and is also related, in intent, to this question.
On this wiki page probability density values from an assumed normal distribution for the training set are used to calculate a Bayesian posterior rather than actual probability values. However, if a training set is not normally distributed would it be equally as valid to use a density value taken from the kernel density estimate of the training set to calculate a Bayesian posterior?
In its intended application this kernel density estimate would be taken from a theoretically ideal empirical data set generated by MC techniques.