I'm not a physicist, but as far as I know, CERN has access to tons of data with every intention of drowning any prior belief. In this setting, I would expect frequentist methods to shine, and bayesian method to be intractable.

However I would not expect CERN papers to make the kinds of terminological / theoretical lapses about confidence the parent thread was talking about. Papers should be rejected for that kind of error, even if you are not a bayesian.

Exactly this. At CERN (and all of HEP elsewhere) the Bayes vs Freq wars were fought many years ago and are long over. The conclusion: when you have lots of data they converge (as they should!).

In the case that they differ you almost always find that you have very few observations. I would argue that this 'difference' is not that exciting because it must be dominated by your assumptions, not your observations. After all once you accumulate enough observations the two methods tend to converge.

Personal conclusion: if the methods disagree work on getting more data instead of fighting over which method is better.

My interpretation? If not clear, I'm quoting the penultimate paragraph of the last post in the series, right before he thanks the reader for making it to the end: http://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2014/06/12/frequentism-and-bay...

Yes frequentism is common in science and the author strongly objects to it. Read the whole post:

https://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2014/06/12/frequentism-and-ba...