Someone pointed me to this paper (by Anthony Bartolotta, Sean Carroll, Stefan Leichenauer, and Jason Pollack) and asked me what I thought. I didn’t have the time to look into it in any detail, but based on the title it seemed a bit Jaynesian.
I sent it to a statistician and former physicist, who wrote:
A little bit Jaynesian but not quite statistical enough. I dunno, I feel like they missed some really important details and never really defined their non-equilibrium system well. But I guess they’re just physicists in the end. . . .
What do you mean by Jaynesian? I mean, what is your stance toward Jaynes?
http://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=jaynes
Yes, earlier posts imply a positive/neutral stance and here I sensed a slightly negative undertone, but maybe it’s just a misunderstanding.