"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Always resonated with me as a good summary. Where a (naive) frequentist might assume, for instance, that

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Always resonated with me as a good summary. Where a (naive) frequentist might assume, for instance, that after a 90% accurate test comes back positive the hypothesis is likely to be true, a Bayesianist would ask how likely it was to be true in the first place; all the test did was make it ten times more likely, which may or may not make it probable. You may enjoy https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XTXWPQSEgoMkAupKt/an-intuitive-explanation-of-bayes-s-theorem https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XTXWPQSEgoMkAupKt/an-intuiti...