So.

Farewell then

Dennis Lindley.

You held the

Hard line on

Bayesianism

When others

Had doubts.

And you share

The name of a famous

Paradox.

What is your subjective

Prior now?

We can only

Infer.

R. A. Thribb (17 1/2)

P.S.

## Recent Comments

- Andrew on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Jake Westfall on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Christian Hennig on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- James on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Andrew on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- James on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- James on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Rahul on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Andrew on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Rahul on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- James C. Whanger on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Gary McClelland on Beyond the median split: Splitting a predictor into 3 parts
- James C. Whanger on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Rahul on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- James C. Whanger on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.
- Gary McClelland on Beyond the median split: Splitting a predictor into 3 parts
- Gary McClelland on Gary McClelland agrees with me that dichotomizing continuous variable is a bad idea. He also thinks my suggestion of dividing a variable into 3 parts is also a mistake.

## Categories

I wonder how large is the intersection of the two sets, “Bayesian statisticians” and “readers of Private Eye.”

Plenty British Bayesians out there, so lots of overlap.

Why not E.J. Thribb, by the way? And was Private Eye left-wing enough for DL?

“R. A.” as a reference to Fisher. I recall that “Thribb” would sometimes vary the name he used to sign the obits.

I like Thribb’s poem. Dennis Lindley was one of the greats of 20th century statistical inference. He is also the namer of “Cromwell’s Principle”, which is mentioned in “Epitaph for a Bayesian”: http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/wpoetry.html#Epitaph

Stephen:

Always good to get an endorsement from Guernsey McPearson. I’ll be sure to pass it on to Thribb.