You don’t need a frequentist. Get someone who fulfills some criteria like:
Thinks likelihood functions are a bad idea
or are unnecessary to do science
can explain how they’ll fail
Thinks the issue lies elsewhere. (A den of thieves cannot be made honest merely through the introduction of p-values, likelihood functions, or any other mathematical construct which does not _)**
“In order to do probability you must understand the domain. Part of science is exploring.”
** It’s a social issue not a technological issue. Or:
It’s a tech/knowledge issue not a math function issue.
-
(The thing itself)
It’d be funny if someone read that and said ‘no serious frequentist takes p-values seriously’. Seriously though, I can imagine someone dismissing both p-values and likelihood functions.
“So you want to figure out if a study is good or not, using just one number.
It doesn’t work. Go home. Or learn how to do science so you can do your job.”
(“But why can’t we just calculate-”
“Statistical power? You could try using that. But something tells me you won’t. It’s just a hunch I got, after I noticed that fact that you frequently cite studies that people have tried to replicate. Tried, and failed. But hey, correlation isn’t causation, all we know is that one happened before the other. They could be completely unrelated.”)
Tl;dr;
You don’t need a frequentist. Get someone who fulfills some criteria like:
Thinks likelihood functions are a bad idea
or are unnecessary to do science
can explain how they’ll fail
Thinks the issue lies elsewhere. (A den of thieves cannot be made honest merely through the introduction of p-values, likelihood functions, or any other mathematical construct which does not _)**
“In order to do probability you must understand the domain. Part of science is exploring.”
** It’s a social issue not a technological issue. Or:
It’s a tech/knowledge issue not a math function issue.
-
(The thing itself)
It’d be funny if someone read that and said ‘no serious frequentist takes p-values seriously’. Seriously though, I can imagine someone dismissing both p-values and likelihood functions.
“So you want to figure out if a study is good or not, using just one number.
It doesn’t work. Go home. Or learn how to do science so you can do your job.”
(“But why can’t we just calculate-”
“Statistical power? You could try using that. But something tells me you won’t. It’s just a hunch I got, after I noticed that fact that you frequently cite studies that people have tried to replicate. Tried, and failed. But hey, correlation isn’t causation, all we know is that one happened before the other. They could be completely unrelated.”)