tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post3824351317863989737..comments2023-03-27T07:05:39.833-07:00Comments on The Lost Art of Thinking: Bayes and Particle PhysicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-78984364747050049442012-02-05T03:42:58.342-08:002012-02-05T03:42:58.342-08:00As I said, the issue with the frequentist approach...As I said, the issue with the frequentist approach is not that the methods do not really work. It's known very well that frequentist methods and Bayesian methods will give the same answers when the dataset is large. Still, Bayesian methods allow you to talk about probabilities without the need of a large sample size.<br><br>About Bayesian looking for frequentist principles to find a foundation, I would be grateful if you could point to some references that I could check.<br><br>~Roberto.Roberto C. Alaminohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09877867478736555985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-72381138470889329312012-02-04T09:43:38.082-08:002012-02-04T09:43:38.082-08:00By contrast, what I don't understand is how so...By contrast, what I don't understand is how so many people have been misled by alleged criticisms of frequentist error statistical methods. They depend on a series of howlers, I'm afraid. I admit that there are silly and unthinking uses of frequentist methods, and my own philosophy of statistics provides a basis for voiding the flaws and fallacies they involve. It is not surprising that Bayesians are increasingly looking to frequentist principles to find a foundation for their own work. see my blog:<br>errorstatistics.comMAYO:ERRORSTAThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02967648219914411407noreply@blogger.com