Bayesians Moving from Defense to Offense

Re:Bayesians Moving from Defense to Offense by Dylan16807 on Monday December 25, 2023 @12:05AM (#38759999)

I was assuming these are general purpose statistics, which means you might want to share them with someone. It's bad for those to get tainted by your personal priors. If it's a purely personal calculation then sure that's fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bayesians Moving from Defense to Offense by hnfong on Monday December 25, 2023 @03:02AM (#38760728)

That's an interesting observation.

Let's say you have a personal belief that something is going to happen with probability x. Would you actually want to tell others that the probability is y, because that's what the data says, without letting people know that for other reasons that are not reflected in the data, you truly believe it is x?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bayesians Moving from Defense to Offense by Dylan16807 on Monday December 25, 2023 @01:47PM (#38764981)

You can give your informed opinion on the probability in addition to what you've derived from the dataset, but you shouldn't conflate them.

Your informed opinion incorporates this dataset, but you shouldn't imply it's "based on" this dataset.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bayesians Moving from Defense to Offense by da39a3ee on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @09:02AM (#38781966)

That's fine and I would agree - you could share the summary statistic used, or the likelihood ratio between the null and some alternative models.

But you shouldn't share a frequentist parameter estimate or confidence interval if you have prior information that would influence it non-negligibly, at least not without sharing that prior information also.

[ Parent | on HN ]