10 ms·
Thank you for your response, but I'd like to understand modern perspectives in the frequentist vs Bayesian debate. I know that in the past, Bayesian methods wer
by muraiki 10y ago
Thank you for your response, but I'd like to understand modern perspectives in the frequentist vs Bayesian debate. I know that in the past, Bayesian methods were oftentimes impossible to use in non-trivial analyses because calculating the integral over the probability of the data was infeasible.
But now that we have efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms along with fast and inexpensive computers for sampling from posterior distributions, why isn't every statistician embracing Bayesian methods if they provide so many benefits over the classical approach?
- PaulHoule 10y agoI think most of the people doing research on statistics now are Bayesians, but I think many practitioners still use the old methods because that is what they learned in school and they are still being taught as a result of inertia. I think the teaching of statistics has often been wrong minded in a number of ways. I am not a professional statistician, but I know enough about it to know what I don't know, so I have a strong preference for nonparametric methods because these are more foolproof than the typical methods that assume gaussian distributions.