He's a damn frequentist! (the big issue is that he's not a philosopher, not that there's anything wrong with it....)
Advertisment
He's a damn frequentist! (the big issue is that he's not a philosopher, not that there's anything wrong with it....)
I was happy to know nothing about the issue:)
They bayesians and frequentists are bashing each other? Still?
Well, ÐС-С seems to be incorrect in his interpretation of the misuse.
bayesian approach seems to be pretty close to our mind:)
It's not one of those misleading and hard to handle approaches.
If we didn't understand the 'information' concept - there would be no bayesian thinking. It is nearly innate.
Does ability to count provocate mistakes like '2+3=6'?
So, i believe, it rather makes some of the mistakes we make clear and M C-C may thank mr. Bayes for this. (instead of blaming)
Unfortunately, statistics in general IS one of those misleading instruments.:(((( Alas. Where i find the calculus or the set theories bright, beautiful and clear things - i feel myself like pressing the round head into square hat while trying to understand statistics.
BTW, underlying philosophy - is the thing we have to understand rather than clash over and fight for:)
I disagree with the idea of looking for the weak sides of everithing. There are the things just to understand:) What are the weakntsses of the crow?
So yes, damned frequentist!
PS. Statistics usually is OK in population genetics, of course.
I mean the obvious thing - its ability to mislead depends on objects it's applied to and the questions you ask.