= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SanguineEmpiricist comments on The buildup to Jaynes? - 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 (22)
Please do not make statements like
"Recipes without real justification. Jaynes was such a relief after that. He just made sense, step after step."
I am not a "classical statistician", but Harald Cramer's 'http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Statistics-Harald-Cram%C3%A9r/dp/0691005478' is still incredibly relevant. He is also famous for relevant results in insurance mathematics and risk theory. It wouldn't be too much of a understatement to say he is the father of modern ruin theory. Something that should otherwise be relevant to all people who care about tail risk.
Do you mean classical, as in the classic frequency of Cramers? Cramers view is still essential. What about logical frequency views such as Kyburg's? Is that 'classical'? Is the difference between the logical approach of Jaynes and the Logical Frequentist approach of Kyburg's closer than Jaynes vs other Bayesians?
Jaynes is a top tier book, but it is false to say that it covers classical statistics better than Harald Cramer's.
I don't think buybuydandavis was saying that Jaynes covers classical statistics well, but that classical statistics isn't worth covering well and that Jaynes covers more useful things well.