3 ms·

No, and I don't know where you're getting your certainty that the answer is wrong from. How about this: find me a published scientific paper with only Bayesian

by rspeer 10y ago

No, and I don't know where you're getting your certainty that the answer is wrong from. How about this: find me a published scientific paper with only Bayesian results in it, no frequentist statistics at all. Argue for its superiority all you want, but I don't think anyone does it. It would be seen as a stunt.

lisper 10y ago
Don't know about a paper, but here's a book: https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Historical/dp/1616145595 https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Histor...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jcahill 10y ago
> find me a published scientific paper with only Bayesian results in it Trivial¹, surely? > [B]ut I don't think anyone does it. It would be seen as a stunt. What did you mean by "scientific"? You'd have to hunt for a narrow reading s.t. the above holds — extant counterexamples aren't limited to any one branch. Check it out² for yourself. Further: cogsci's bayesian adoption is rapidly accelerating. The replication crisis is brutalizing huge swathes of psych: • loss of confidence in NHST is becoming near-total for many • journals are purging in turn — e.g. BASP's p-value ban³⁴ • others are overhauling stats-in-psych entirely J Math Psych alone has two recent special issues⁵⁶ on this. I mean: > no frequentist stats at all isn't even a strawman lately, let alone an absurdity. In some fields, it's a battle-cry. All that being said… re: > Argue for its superiority all you want I wouldn't even go that far. Don't give em that. Probability interpretation fundies • are all wrong, • narrow minds and waste lifespans with the cultism, and • should at least learn of the other interpretations. Pitching probability as a 1v1 isn't merely wrong-prime⁷ — it's doublepluswrong″⁸. It's pseudofundamentalism: fundies uphold foundations. Flamewars predicated on ignorance of the same gotta go, no matter how fashionable they may be. ____________________________________________________________ [1] http://enwp.org/bayesian_game http://enwp.org/bayesian_game [2] http://google.com/scholar?q=fully+bayesian http://google.com/scholar?q=fully+bayesian [3] http://doi.org/4z8 http://doi.org/4z8 | BASP 37 [4] http://doi.org/34p http://doi.org/34p | Nature re: BASP [5] http://doi.org/btqx http://doi.org/btqx | J Math Psych 72 [6] http://doi.org/btqz http://doi.org/btqz | J Math Psych 74 [7] http://enwp.org/all_models_are_wrong http://enwp.org/all_models_are_wrong [8] http://enwp.org/not_even_wrong http://enwp.org/not_even_wrong

by rspeer 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

Don't know about a paper, but here's a book: https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Historical/dp/1616145595 https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Histor...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jcahill 10y ago

> find me a published scientific paper with only Bayesian results in it Trivial¹, surely? > [B]ut I don't think anyone does it. It would be seen as a stunt. What did you mean by "scientific"? You'd have to hunt for a narrow reading s.t. the above holds — extant counterexamples aren't limited to any one branch. Check it out² for yourself. Further: cogsci's bayesian adoption is rapidly accelerating. The replication crisis is brutalizing huge swathes of psych: • loss of confidence in NHST is becoming near-total for many • journals are purging in turn — e.g. BASP's p-value ban³⁴ • others are overhauling stats-in-psych entirely J Math Psych alone has two recent special issues⁵⁶ on this. I mean: > no frequentist stats at all isn't even a strawman lately, let alone an absurdity. In some fields, it's a battle-cry. All that being said… re: > Argue for its superiority all you want I wouldn't even go that far. Don't give em that. Probability interpretation fundies • are all wrong, • narrow minds and waste lifespans with the cultism, and • should at least learn of the other interpretations. Pitching probability as a 1v1 isn't merely wrong-prime⁷ — it's doublepluswrong″⁸. It's pseudofundamentalism: fundies uphold foundations. Flamewars predicated on ignorance of the same gotta go, no matter how fashionable they may be. ____________________________________________________________ [1] http://enwp.org/bayesian_game http://enwp.org/bayesian_game [2] http://google.com/scholar?q=fully+bayesian http://google.com/scholar?q=fully+bayesian [3] http://doi.org/4z8 http://doi.org/4z8 | BASP 37 [4] http://doi.org/34p http://doi.org/34p | Nature re: BASP [5] http://doi.org/btqx http://doi.org/btqx | J Math Psych 72 [6] http://doi.org/btqz http://doi.org/btqz | J Math Psych 74 [7] http://enwp.org/all_models_are_wrong http://enwp.org/all_models_are_wrong [8] http://enwp.org/not_even_wrong http://enwp.org/not_even_wrong