For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and frequentist approaches?

Re:For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and f... by Retric on Friday February 12, 2016 @10:02AM (#11087617)

Bayesian logic is arguably less useful for other people.

ex: If I read someone train of Bayesian logic from 1940 it's almost useless to me.

It can also be harder to combine information from multiple sources. AKA Study A is used as a prior in B and C's studies, I need to only count A's impact once.

However, it's arguably much better for making decisions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and f... by tel on Friday February 12, 2016 @10:17AM (#11087723)

I'm not sure I understand your 1940s point, but generally Bayesians would like to communicate (edit) likelihoods instead of posteriors so that they can be combined like you ask.

Edit: autocorrect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and f... by dllthomas on Friday February 12, 2016 @11:12AM (#11088223)

"Likelihoods"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and f... by tel on Friday February 12, 2016 @12:37PM (#11088871)

Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a non-expert, what's different between Bayesian and f... by Retric on Friday February 12, 2016 @10:48AM (#11088005)

Ed: Ahh ok I was going wtf? Thanks.

[ Parent | on HN ]