←back to thread

Bayesian Statistics: The three cultures

(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
309 points luu | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
thegginthesky ◴[] No.41080693[source]
I miss the college days where professors would argue endlessly on Bayesian vs Frequentist.

The article is very well succinct and even explains why even my Bayesian professors had different approaches to research and analysis. I never knew about the third camp, Pragmatic Bayes, but definitely is in line with a professor's research that was very through on probability fit and the many iteration to get the prior and joint PDF just right.

Andrew Gelman has a very cool talk "Andrew Gelman - Bayes, statistics, and reproducibility (Rutgers, Foundations of Probability)", which I highly recommend for many Data Scientists

replies(4): >>41080841 #>>41080979 #>>41080990 #>>41087094 #
RandomThoughts3 ◴[] No.41080979[source]
I’m always puzzled by this because while I come from a country where the frequentist approach generally dominates, the fight with Bayesian basically doesn’t exist. That’s just a bunch of mathematical theories and tools. Just use what’s useful.

I’m still convinced that Americans tend to dislike the frequentist view because it requires a stronger background in mathematics.

replies(7): >>41081068 #>>41081297 #>>41081328 #>>41081349 #>>41081566 #>>41081982 #>>41083467 #
ordu ◴[] No.41081566[source]
I'd suggest you to read "The Book of Why"[1]. It is mostly about Judea's Pearl next creation, about causality, but he also covers bayesian approach, the history of statistics, his motivation behind bayesian statistics, and some success stories also.

To read this book will be much better, then to apply "Hanlon's Razor"[2] because you see no other explanation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Why

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

replies(1): >>41083322 #
1. ◴[] No.41083322[source]