= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (89)
If not using background information means you can publish your paper with frequentists methods, scientists often don't use background information.
Those scientifists who don't use less background information get more significant results. Therefore they get more published papers. Then they get more funding than the people who use more background information. It's publish or perish.
You could be right, but I am skeptical. I would like to see evidence -- preferably in the form of bibliometric analysis -- that practicing scientists who use frequentist statistical techniques (a) don't make use of background information, and (b) publish more successfully than comparable scientists who do make use of background information.