Cyan comments on Bayes' rule =/= Bayesian inference - Less Wrong

37 Post author: neq1 16 September 2010 06:34AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 16 September 2010 05:17:58PM *  8 points [-]

Joseph Felsenstein is a pioneer in the use of maximum likelihood methods in evolutionary biology. In his book, "Inferring Phylogenies", he has a chapter on Bayesian methods, and a section in that chapter on controversies over Bayesian inference. He discusses a toy example of a space probe to Mars which looks for little green men and doesn't find them. He wonders whether a scientist whose prior for little green men involved odds of 1/4, and who, based on the evidence of the space probe, now assigns odds of 1/12, should publish those revised odds. He writes:

It might be argued that the correct thing to do in such a case is to publish the likelihood ratio 1/3 and let the reader provide their own prior. This is the likelihoodist position. A Bayesian is defined, not by using a prior, but by being willing to use a controversial prior.

Felsenstein apparently defines himself as a "likelihoodist" rather than a "frequentist" or "Bayesian".

Comment author: Cyan 16 September 2010 09:07:24PM *  13 points [-]

"Likelihoodist" is so clunky and dull. I prefer "likelihoodlum" -- it's just as clunky, but at least it's somewhat inflammatory.