[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Aren't you two just particpating in the 250 year old fracas?

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Tuesday, 3 November 2009, at 7:55 p.m.

In Response To: Aren't you two just particpating in the 250 year old fracas? (Chuck Bower)

No.

We would be participating in the frequentist-Bayesian debate if (say) I were to insist that we ought to assert things such as "the probability that Play A is best is 85%" while Tom were to insist that such an assertion were meaningless, and that we should stick to talking about probabilities of things happening under a certain null hypothesis.

But Tom is the one who wants to say "the probability that Play A is best is 85%." Once you take that step, the only way to make good sense of that is the Bayesian method. If you don't want to go the Bayesian route, that's fine; it's a philosophical choice. But then you need to be consistent, and avoid saying things like "the probability that Play A is best is 85%."

For an analogy, if you flip a coin a bunch of times and observe the results, you might ask, "What is the probability that the coin is biased?" The frequentist would reject the question as meaningless. That answer is fine with me; I'm not insisting that anybody become a Bayesian. All I'm saying is that if you insist on asking that question and giving an answer, then you need to be a Bayesian. There isn't any way to make sense of that question on a frequentist account.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.