Just for the fun of it…
On this useful series of posts from Freakonometrics:
I stumbled upon this 1996 article published in Ecological Applications:
Discussion: Should Ecologists Become Bayesians?
It was a really fun and surprising read to me, so I felt like sharing. Most surprising was the argument that established Frequentism had a better track record than Bayesian stats. What a weird remark from a researcher! Hopefully the atmosphere among ecologists changed since 1996 (and people learned about Bayesian model choice), but I think that such articles explains why experienced Bayesian statisticians spend time writing replies like “Not only defended but also applied”: The perceived absurdity of Bayesian inference and the recently-arXived anti-Bayesian moment and its passing for instance.
[...] Should ecologists become Bayesians? [...]
I think it’s clear enough from Brian Dennis’ piece that he’s against *subjective* Bayesians. Bayesians like Andrew Gelman, who believe statistics is a tool for learning about the world rather than updating one’s personal beliefs, and who are prepared to throw out their models (e.g., based on posterior predictive checks, which is something a subjective Bayesian wouldn’t countenance) aren’t Dennis’ target at all. Insofar as the anti-Bayesian moment in ecology has passed, I think (or hope!) it’s because Dennis’ worry about ecologists becoming subjective Bayesians has mostly proved unfounded.
Thanks for the clarification!