On Saturday, 29 December 2012 23:38:41 UTC, Rich Ulrich wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:21:31 -0800 (PST), illywhacker > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >This just shows the total mess (meaningless concepts, ad hoc tests, unclarified assumptions, contradictory results with no explanation, "I would be willing to use...", confusion on the part of the user) that arises from the nonsensical nature of classical statistical hypothesis testing. The best advice here is: learn Bayesian methods. > > > > > > > Are you saying that Bayesian methods are so limited and narrow that > > you, the Bayesian, cannot apply alternate assumptions and tests? Or > > get confused by conflicting results? I've stayed away from Baysian > > because it seemed more confusing, not less.
No. I am saying that assumptions are clearer. For example, estimation requires an explicit loss function; an explicit prior is needed, even for non-parametric procedures; etc.