> suggesting Bayesian methods could tell us whether there is life on Mars. What I suggest is that Bayesian methods provide a framework to reason about the plau

> suggesting Bayesian methods could tell us whether there is life on Mars. What I suggest is that Bayesian methods provide a framework to reason about the plausability of some statement about the world in a systematic way (unlike Frequentist methods, whatever the limitations in Bayesian methods). > Sometimes you really need to gather more information and/or develop an analytic model. Bayesian methods are definitely not a way to escape the need for an analytic model (including all the prior knowledge) and data gathering. What they provide is a mechanism to integrate the data using the model and calculate the impact of incremental information on our knowledge / uncertainty. I’m not saying that it’s easy to have a good model and useful data for complex questions. But with Frequentist methods in addition to the model and the data you’d be missing the mechanism to use them in a meaningful way. I wonder why do you say that Bayesians try to avoid randomized controlled trials for new drugs, by the way. Bayesian methods are increasingly used in randomized clinical trials.