> Right now it seems pretty common to translate Bayesian experimental results sloppily into frequentist ones to get them past reviewers. This is interesting.

> Right now it seems pretty common to translate Bayesian experimental results sloppily into frequentist ones to get them past reviewers. This is interesting. I'm glad for a different perspective. I chalk this up to differences across fields, because my experience is so different. My advisor learned Bayesian statistics from Arnold Zellner a few decades ago, and his synopsis of the class was: "It was great in theory, but we could't implement it." Once computers made if more possible, it seems to have spread rather quickly, possibly because computing power was the last piece of a mostly complete puzzle. It's almost to the point that reviewers prefer the Bayesian approach, in my neck of the academic woods.