"Not Only Defended But Also Applied" : The Perceived Absurdity of Bayesian Inference
The missionary zeal of many Bayesians of old has been matched, in the other direction, by an attitude among some theoreticians that Bayesian methods were absurd—not merely misguided but obviously wrong in principle. We consider several examples, beginning with Feller's classic text on probability theory and continuing with more recent cases such as the perceived Bayesian nature of the so-called doomsday argument. We analyze in this note the intellectual background behind various misconceptions about Bayesian statistics, without aiming at a complete historical coverage of the reasons for this dismissal.
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in The American Statistician, 2013, Vol. 67, no. 1. pp. 1-5.Length: 4 pages|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.dauphine.fr/en/welcome.html|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stephen Senn, 2011. "You May Believe You Are a Bayesian But You Are Probably Wrong," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 2(42), September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dau:papers:123456789/11069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alexandre Faure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.