Most “frequentists” aren’t such sticklers about terminology. Most people who attach probabilities to beliefs in knowledge representations—say, AI systems—are more familiar with frequentist than Bayesian methodology.
I PM’ed you regarding this thread. (I mention it here because I seem to recall that you’re subject to a bug that prevents you from getting message/reply notifications.)
Doesn’t “Bayesianism” basically boil down to the idea that one can think of beliefs in terms of mathematical probabilities?
That’s like saying that Sunni beliefs boil down to belief in Islam.
Following your analogy, what is the equivalent to Shia Islam?
Put another way: Bayesianism as opposed to what?
Frequentism, according to the posters here. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by thinking of a belief in terms of probabilities.
But the standard Frequentist stance is that probabilities are not degrees of belief, but solely long term frequencies in random experiments.
Most “frequentists” aren’t such sticklers about terminology. Most people who attach probabilities to beliefs in knowledge representations—say, AI systems—are more familiar with frequentist than Bayesian methodology.
Okay, so most people who use statistics don’t know what they’re talking about. I find that all too plausible.
I looked up “Frequentism” on Wikipedia . . . .I don’t understand your point.
What concept am I omitting by characterizing “Bayesianism” the way I did?
Google frequentist instead of frequentism. It’s the usual way of doing statistics and working with probabilities.
I did and I still don’t understand your point.
Again my question: Exactly what concept am I omitting by characterizing “Bayesianism” the way I did?
I PM’ed you regarding this thread. (I mention it here because I seem to recall that you’re subject to a bug that prevents you from getting message/reply notifications.)