Re: The danger of classical hypothesis and significance tests [was Re: MADLY AMUSED]

S. F. Thomas wrote:
JoJo wrote:
S. F. Thomas wrote:
[..]
I have seen this attempt before to turn the Bayesian bug into a feature. I remain unmoved. Any constraint on the parameter is in my opinion better and more honestly placed where it belongs -- within the probability model. Certainly there is no in-principle necessity to resort to a prior to achieve the same effect.

S.F.


Could you briefly explain what you consider a "bayesian bug" ?

> [..] The Bayesian bug is the very same
that bothered Rev. Thomas Bayes from the beginning (18th century), namely the lack of justification for treating the parameter constant as a random variable in its own right, and rewriting the original model as conditional probability.

[..]

In fact, the Prior is *in principle* irrelevant to the problem of inference because the whole inferential import about what the data say about the true but unknown parameter value is summed up entirely in the Likelihood. Therefore, I maintain, the notion of prior and etc. remain essentially a bug in the inferential soup served by the Bayesians.

[..]

I hope the above quick recitation has helped.

Yes, thanks, all clear (although that was a little bit more than brief).
Just wasn't sure what you meant.

As for me, treating parameter as a random entity is more logical than assuming that it is a "true but unknown value".

Cheers,
JoJo

P.S. Are you debating the issue of real numbers somewhere ?
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast