> I would love to know to what you are referring with the inconsistent beliefs. You could build frequentist models for the odds of 0 to 1 inches of rain fallin

> I would love to know to what you are referring with the inconsistent beliefs. You could build frequentist models for the odds of 0 to 1 inches of rain falling in Cleveland tomorrow, 1 to 2 inches, and 0 to 2 inches, and the odds of 0 to 1 plus 1 to 2 don't need to add up to 0 to 2 inches. You can justify all 3 models, but they are inconsistent. Bayesian models don't allow that. I read about this in Aaron Brown's "Red-Blooded Risk". Here's an online source asserting "frequentists can have two different unbiased estimators under the same likelihood functions." https://chenghanyu.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-frequentist-and-bayesian-paradigms/ https://chenghanyu.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-strengths-an... Here's one saying that Bayesian models are self-consistent: http://bactra.org/notebooks/bayesian-consistency.html http://bactra.org/notebooks/bayesian-consistency.html Here's Eliezer Yudkowsky giving examples of my other point, that frequentist models can encourage sloppy behavior from scientists: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1gc/frequentist_statistics_are_frequently_subjective/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1gc/frequentist_statistics_are_frequ...