the thing with frequentism is ” yeah just use methods in a pragmatic way and don’t think about it that hard”
I think this does not accurately represent my beliefs. It is about thinking hard about how the methods actually behave, as opposed to having a theory that prescribes how methods should behave and then constructing algorithms based on that.
Frequentists analyze the properties of an algorithm that takes data as input (in their jargon, an ‘estimator’).
They also try to construct better algorithms, but each new algorithm is bespoke and requires original thinking, as opposed to Bayes which says “you should compute the posterior probability”, which makes it very easy to construct algorithms. (This is a drawback of the frequentist approach—algorithm construction is not automatic. But the finite-computation Bayesian algorithms have very few guarantees anyways so I don’t think we should count it against them too much).
I think having rando social scientists using likelihood ratios would also lead to mistakes and such.
I think this does not accurately represent my beliefs. It is about thinking hard about how the methods actually behave, as opposed to having a theory that prescribes how methods should behave and then constructing algorithms based on that.
Frequentists analyze the properties of an algorithm that takes data as input (in their jargon, an ‘estimator’).
They also try to construct better algorithms, but each new algorithm is bespoke and requires original thinking, as opposed to Bayes which says “you should compute the posterior probability”, which makes it very easy to construct algorithms. (This is a drawback of the frequentist approach—algorithm construction is not automatic. But the finite-computation Bayesian algorithms have very few guarantees anyways so I don’t think we should count it against them too much).
I think having rando social scientists using likelihood ratios would also lead to mistakes and such.