4 ms·

Indeed, when I took statistics in college, nearly 40 years ago, we proved Bayes theorem, and worked through several applications, so it could hardly have been r

Indeed, when I took statistics in college, nearly 40 years ago, we proved Bayes theorem, and worked through several applications, so it could hardly have been regarded as controversial.

adastra22 3y ago
It’s not. Statistics is statistics. This controversy is new and contrived.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Tell that to Ronald Fisher, who made it a point to deride Bayesian stats wherever there was an opportunity.
- jvans 3y ago
  The controversy is decades old and largely resolved. Both methods work well on large enough data sets, Bayesian methods are far superior on small datasets
  - adastra22 3y ago
    This statement doesn’t really make sense to me. A frequentist approach assumes a random (or noisy) underlying process and characterizes its probability. A Bayesian approach assumes a fixed but unknown process and updates the probability a given model matches that reality. It is ultimately the same math, if you are comparing apples to apples. Just different ways of looking at a problem. Sometimes one is better suited than the other. It’s like as if physicists were arguing over whether Cartesian or Polar coordinates were better. It’s the same damn physics, just expressed differently. In some problems one approach is easier to work with than the other, and can even make seemingly intractable problems solvable. But that doesn’t mean the other approach was “wrong.”
    - jvans 3y ago
      In many cases yes. A simple example where this is not true is if your populations have different variances. T tests are no longer valid but heterogenous variances can be modeled with a Bayesian approach
tnecniv 3y ago
Bayes theorem is fairly elementary probability. It isn’t the part that is questioned in Bayesian statistics. Someone disagreeing with Bayes theorem would be like disagreeing with addition. The controversial part is the methodology for statistical analysis built on top of it (e.g., you need a prior but where did that come from?)
- winwang 3y ago
  Priors come from the barrel of a gun :P
Tomte 3y ago
Bayes theorem shares a name with Bayesianism, but it is not specific to it. No frequentist would question Bayes theorem, it is on the level of 1+1=2.

Indeed, when I took statistics in college, nearly 40 years ago, we proved Bayes theorem, and worked through several applications, so it could hardly have been regarded as controversial.

adastra22 3y ago

It’s not. Statistics is statistics. This controversy is new and contrived.

fbdab103 3y ago
Tell that to Ronald Fisher, who made it a point to deride Bayesian stats wherever there was an opportunity.
jvans 3y ago
The controversy is decades old and largely resolved. Both methods work well on large enough data sets, Bayesian methods are far superior on small datasets
- adastra22 3y ago
  This statement doesn’t really make sense to me. A frequentist approach assumes a random (or noisy) underlying process and characterizes its probability. A Bayesian approach assumes a fixed but unknown process and updates the probability a given model matches that reality. It is ultimately the same math, if you are comparing apples to apples. Just different ways of looking at a problem. Sometimes one is better suited than the other. It’s like as if physicists were arguing over whether Cartesian or Polar coordinates were better. It’s the same damn physics, just expressed differently. In some problems one approach is easier to work with than the other, and can even make seemingly intractable problems solvable. But that doesn’t mean the other approach was “wrong.”
  - jvans 3y ago
    In many cases yes. A simple example where this is not true is if your populations have different variances. T tests are no longer valid but heterogenous variances can be modeled with a Bayesian approach

tnecniv 3y ago

Bayes theorem is fairly elementary probability. It isn’t the part that is questioned in Bayesian statistics. Someone disagreeing with Bayes theorem would be like disagreeing with addition. The controversial part is the methodology for statistical analysis built on top of it (e.g., you need a prior but where did that come from?)

winwang 3y ago
Priors come from the barrel of a gun :P

Tomte 3y ago

Bayes theorem shares a name with Bayesianism, but it is not specific to it. No frequentist would question Bayes theorem, it is on the level of 1+1=2.