> I'm not sure that even frequentists know what the rules are for being a "frequentist". I take no particular side on this debate, but that seems very unfair.

> I'm not sure that even frequentists know what the rules are for being a "frequentist". I take no particular side on this debate, but that seems very unfair. The point of frequentism is this: Suppose we want to determine, say, the constant G of gravity. Suppose that 1000 groups around the world perform experiments to measure G, and then use frequentist statistics to compute 95% confidence intervals for G. ~950 of the groups will compute intervals that contain the true constant. There are many advantages to bayesian methods, but none of them give you coverage. Your point about not being able to say anything about the true value is technically true. The reason is that frequentists believe that one should avoid making such statements.