I refuse to entertain the idea that bayesian should be called what it is and not inverse probability. Bayesians ego’s are overinflated on their own hot air. Kolmogorov comes first.
Yes I have read those. The Judea Pearl part of my standard showpiece. I love See Gelman’s blog and Mayo’s older book or perhaps recent book further criticisms. Gelman has collaborated with Mayo and Cosma.
I refuse to entertain the idea that bayesian should be called what it is and not inverse probability. Bayesians ego’s are overinflated on their own hot air. Kolmogorov comes first.
Protocols of Anti-Bayes:
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/601.html
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1176349830
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/bayesian-consistency.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00535479
and how could I forget this masterpiece?
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=philosophy
What do you think of this and this?
Yes I have read those. The Judea Pearl part of my standard showpiece. I love See Gelman’s blog and Mayo’s older book or perhaps recent book further criticisms. Gelman has collaborated with Mayo and Cosma.