Mayo: “the JSM does not list methodology in general but only Bayesian”. Not true. JSM specifically has sessions on “General Methodology”, go look at the sponsors. It also lists hundreds of sessions on general areas of methodology; e.g. methods for doing nonparametric work, or survey statistics, or data mining, where use of the B word does not determine relevance.

“Constant Bayesian cheerleading” was a fact of life years ago – when many in the field would disdain Bayesian methods. Not true today; try going to an ISBA meeting to see how little cheerleading there is. And if you can’t imagine other statisticians “cheerleading”, check out e.g. Oscar Kempthorne’s [failed] attempt to shout down Lindley and Smith. There are plenty of one-sided commentaries out there.

]]>“Tribal Drums”?!?!?! Nice! We are kind of “Savages”, anyway!

]]>I agree. This reminds me of a foolish thing that Leo Breiman once wrote, claiming in 1997 that Bayesian applied statistics was nearly nonexistent, based on the evidence that there were almost zero papers that included the words “data” and “Bayes” or “Bayesian” in their keywords.

He somehow had no idea that a paper with titles such as “Physiological pharmacokinetic analysis using population modeling and informative prior distributions” or “Estimating the electoral consequences of legislative redistricting” could represent applied work. After all, we didn’t have “data” in our title or our keywords. How applied could a paper be, if it doesn’t include “data” as a keyword???

]]>On the other hand, “Bayesian” in the title makes such papers easier to ignore.

\end{flamebait}

I kid, I kid! Couldn’t help myself…

]]>*If he really did believe in his Bayesian methods, one wonders why he felt the need to write the letter about Higgs physicists practicing “bad science” because they used p values. ]]>

another interesting Ngram search is:

confidence interval, posterior distribution

interesting!

]]>