5 ms·
> Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics. That's not really the point. The article is simply sayin
by privong 11y ago
> Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics.
That's not really the point. The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet; it's not saying that other methods of statistics are free from problems.
- cwyers 11y ago> The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet But it's not really saying it in passing; the headline is taken from that paragraph. At that point it almost feels like a takedown of a strawman Bayesian.