On 7 Jun 2006 10:04:23 -0400, email@example.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote:
>Toni Lassila <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >>On 6 Jun 2006 22:30:54 -0700, "Bill Taylor" >><email@example.com> wrote: >> >>>BTW - I *do* think that Bayesian ideas have a good place! >>>Namely, in subjective circumstances. If a theoretician/user >>>decides he wants to do some respectable stats about his OWN beliefs, >>>with no thought of publicity or public use, then Bayesianism >>>could well be the way to go! (Though it NEED not.) >>> >>>But if there is to be any suggestion of public concerns, >>>especially e.g. of medical/pharmaceutical concerns, and other >>>dangerous contexts, then a subjective approach is totally >>>irresponsible and hateful. It is true, we can never eliminate >>>the subjective element from public concerns completely, nor from >>>science or math. But we ought to be seeking ways to DETECT and >>>MINIMIZE the subjective element. NOT building it into the system!!! >> >>Care to elaborate? If you don't trust the subjective calculations of >>pharmaceutical companies, then why would you trust their frequentist >>calculations any more? > >I'm not Bill Taylor (or, at least, my subjective assessment of the >probability that I am is practically indistinguishable from 0), but >perhaps he would/will say that there's no need to "trust their >frequentist calculations" as long as you can have access to the same >data which they use to make those calculations.
Well it's not like people doing Bayesian estimation hide or withhold their priors: "Here we assumed that the parameter follows a prior distribution, but we won't tell you what that distribution is!"