Who are these mysterious straw Bayesians who refuse to use algorithms that work well and could easily turn out to have a good explanation later? Bayes is epistemological background not a toolbox of algorithms.
After a careful rereading of http://lesswrong.com/lw/mt/beautiful_probability/, the 747 analogy suggests that, once you understand the difference between an epistemological background and a toolbox, it might be a good idea to use the toolbox. But I didn’t really read it that way the first time, so I imagine others might have made a similar mistake. I’ll edit my post to make the straw Bayesians hypothetical, to make it clear that I’m making a point to other LW readers rather than criticizing a class of practicing statisticians.
Bayes is epistemological background not a toolbox of algorithms.
I disagree: I think you are lumping two things together that don’t necessarily belong together. There is Bayesian epistemology, which is philosophy, describing in principle how we should reason, and there is Bayesian statistics, something that certain career statisticians use in their day to day work. I’d say that frequentism does fairly poorly as an epistemology, but it seems like it can be pretty useful in statistics if used “right”. It’s nice to have nice principles underlying your statistics, but sometimes ad hoc methods and experience and intuition just work.
Yes, but the sounder the epistemology is the harder is to [ETA: accidentally] misuse the tools. Cue all the people misunderstanding what p-values mean...
The fundamental confusion going on here comes from peculiar terminology.
jsteinhardt writes:
Also, I should note that for the sake of simplicity I’ve labeled everything that is non-Bayesian as a “frequentist” method
So every algorithm that isn’t obviously Bayesian is labeled Frequentist, while in fact what we have are two epistemological frameworks, and a zillion and one algorithms that we throw at data that don’t neatly fit into either framework.
Who are these mysterious straw Bayesians who refuse to use algorithms that work well and could easily turn out to have a good explanation later? Bayes is epistemological background not a toolbox of algorithms.
After a careful rereading of http://lesswrong.com/lw/mt/beautiful_probability/, the 747 analogy suggests that, once you understand the difference between an epistemological background and a toolbox, it might be a good idea to use the toolbox. But I didn’t really read it that way the first time, so I imagine others might have made a similar mistake. I’ll edit my post to make the straw Bayesians hypothetical, to make it clear that I’m making a point to other LW readers rather than criticizing a class of practicing statisticians.
I’d actually forgotten I’d written that. Thank you for reminding me!
I disagree: I think you are lumping two things together that don’t necessarily belong together. There is Bayesian epistemology, which is philosophy, describing in principle how we should reason, and there is Bayesian statistics, something that certain career statisticians use in their day to day work. I’d say that frequentism does fairly poorly as an epistemology, but it seems like it can be pretty useful in statistics if used “right”. It’s nice to have nice principles underlying your statistics, but sometimes ad hoc methods and experience and intuition just work.
Yes, but the sounder the epistemology is the harder is to [ETA: accidentally] misuse the tools. Cue all the people misunderstanding what p-values mean...
The fundamental confusion going on here comes from peculiar terminology.
jsteinhardt writes:
So every algorithm that isn’t obviously Bayesian is labeled Frequentist, while in fact what we have are two epistemological frameworks, and a zillion and one algorithms that we throw at data that don’t neatly fit into either framework.