> it's obvious that we need some convergence. Why? This isn't politics. Maybe one approach IS better than the other. Or maybe there are better methods we don't

> it's obvious that we need some convergence. Why? This isn't politics. Maybe one approach IS better than the other. Or maybe there are better methods we don't know. In fact I think most Bayesians would consider Frequentist methods either plain "wrong" (like, at best works in special cases) or as approximations to the full Bayesian way. And that doesn't mean they are useless, because going fully Bayesian normaly requires "a lot" of computation, or maybe we have issues with elicitation (I suspect this is the biggest hurdle for frequentists). But Bayes is still the gold standard.