Good point. It would be illustrative to get some examples where a prototypical (but competent) Bayesian and a prototypical (but competent) frequentist would giv

Good point. It would be illustrative to get some examples where a prototypical (but competent) Bayesian and a prototypical (but competent) frequentist would give different answers. It seems to me that when there really is a known base rate, the answers would coincide. And if there is no base rate, the Bayesian would guess (but explicitly) or refuse to answer, while the frequentist would give a plausible answer, which, however, very much hinges on the unknown base rate. In the light of the replication crisis, maybe the Bayesian approach is better.