New blog from the philosopher Deborah Mayo who I think agrees with me about many statistical issues although from a non-Bayesian perspective.
But I disagree with her when she writes that certain criticisms of frequentist statistical methods “keep popping up (verbatim) in every Bayesian textbook and article on philosophical foundations.”
I’ve written a couple of Bayesian textbooks and some articles on philosophical foundations, and I don’t think I do this!
That said, I think Mayo has a lot to say, so I wouldn’t judge her whole blog (let alone her published work) based on that one intemperate statement.
OK, I’m prepared to say that not all criticisms pop up in all books, and I especially like the way Gelman handles one of the standard complaints (more later); but all do contain at least 1. Anyway, I will modify that to “virtually all” or the like; but most importantly, I hope people will be a little patient until I get to what I mean. I haven’t even officially announced the blog—but thank for feedback—and thanks so much for mentioning the site!
Huh???
I read her blog entry, and I don’t understand what she is complaining about.
I have lots of problems with frequentist statistics, but nothing she wrote has anything to do with my problems or criticisms.
Bill:
I think Mayo has a lot to say but there are big differences in language between statisticians and philosophers.
So, I have subscribed to her blog and will pay attention to what she writes.
I was just not encouraged by what she’s posted so far.
I’m really glad there will be a new blog looking at this kind of thing. I usually use Bayesian methods but I think a lot of the hype that they are very superior to frequentist methods is incorrect. I think both approaches have valuable aspects to them.
so according to her blog, we, the Bayesians, are the intollerant ones bc we don’t listen to the other side..