On 2014-02-13, at 10:38 AM, Paul C Bernhardt wrote:
My only problem with the Bayesian approach, described elegantly in the
article, is that the posterior probabilities are so dependent on the prior
probabilities.
I hear this all this time, but I disagree. Even wildly divergent priors
On Feb 14, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Christopher Green wrote:
On 2014-02-13, at 10:38 AM, Paul C Bernhardt wrote:
My only problem with the Bayesian approach, described elegantly in the article,
is that the posterior probabilities are so dependent on the prior probabilities.
I hear this all this
Paul C Bernhardt wrote:
My only problem with the Bayesian approach, described elegantly in the
article, is that the posterior probabilities are so dependent on the prior
probabilities.
To which Chris Green replied:
I hear this all this time, but I disagree. Even wildly divergent priors
: Statistical errors : Nature News
Comment
Paul C Bernhardt wrote:
My only problem with the Bayesian approach, described elegantly in the
article, is that the posterior probabilities are so dependent on the prior
probabilities.
To which Chris Green replied:
I hear this all this time, but I disagree
Excellent paper, and probably is comprehensible for many of our undergraduate
students.
It is, of course, the foundational Bayesian argument against simplistic NHST,
but one of the best expositions to lay out the fundamental issues that I've
seen.
My only problem with the Bayesian approach,
12, 2014 6:46:59 PM
Subject: RE: [tips] Scientific method: Statistical errors : Nature News
Comment
Hi
Interesting article, although I need to think more about it. One obvious
weakness is the old canard about effect size being a better indicator of
importance than p value. The author uses
