IS this a good book to start with? I know it’s the standard “Bayes” intro around here, but is it good for someone with, let’s say, zero formal probability/statistics training?
I was under the impression that the “this is definitely not a book for beginners” was the standard consensus here: I seem to recall seeing some heavily-upvoted comments saying that you should be approximately at the level of a math/stats graduate student before reading it. I couldn’t find them with a quick search, but here’s one comment that explicitly recommends another book over it.
I think it’s even better if you’re not familiar with frequentist statistics because you won’t have to unlearn it first, but I know many people here disagree.
I suppose it’s better that to never have suffered through frequentist statistics first, but I think you appreciate the right way a lot more after you’ve had to suffer through the wrong way for a while.
Well, Jaynes does point out how bad frequentism is as often as he can get away with. I guess the main thing you’re missing out if you weren’t previously familiar with it is knowing whether he’s attacking a strawman.
Here, have a book!
http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html
Actually, I started reading that one and found it too hard.
IS this a good book to start with? I know it’s the standard “Bayes” intro around here, but is it good for someone with, let’s say, zero formal probability/statistics training?
I was under the impression that the “this is definitely not a book for beginners” was the standard consensus here: I seem to recall seeing some heavily-upvoted comments saying that you should be approximately at the level of a math/stats graduate student before reading it. I couldn’t find them with a quick search, but here’s one comment that explicitly recommends another book over it.
I think it’s even better if you’re not familiar with frequentist statistics because you won’t have to unlearn it first, but I know many people here disagree.
I suppose it’s better that to never have suffered through frequentist statistics first, but I think you appreciate the right way a lot more after you’ve had to suffer through the wrong way for a while.
Well, Jaynes does point out how bad frequentism is as often as he can get away with. I guess the main thing you’re missing out if you weren’t previously familiar with it is knowing whether he’s attacking a strawman.
I agree, that’s why I’m glad I learned Bayes first. Makes you appreciate the good stuff more.
Did you misread the comment you’re replying to, are you sarcastic, or am I missing something?