U-PHIL: Stephen Senn (2): Andrew Gelman

 I agree with Senn’s comments on the impossibility of the de Finetti subjective Bayesian approach.  As I wrote in 2008, if you could really construct a subjective prior you believe in, why not just look at the data and write down your subjective posterior.  The immense practical difficulties with any serious system of inference render it absurd to think that it would be possible to just write down a probability distribution to represent uncertainty.  I wish, however, that Senn would recognize “my” Bayesian approach (which is also that of John Carlin, Hal Stern, Don Rubin, and, I believe, others).  De Finetti is no longer around, but we are!
I have to admit that my own Bayesian views and practices have changed.  In particular, I resonate with Senn’s point that conventional flat priors miss a lot and that Bayesian inference can work better when real prior information is used.  Here I’m not talking about a subjective prior that is meant to express a personal belief but rather a distribution that represents a summary of prior scientific knowledge.  Such an expression can only be approximate (as, indeed, assumptions such as logistic regressions, additive treatment effects, and all the rest, are only approximations too), and I agree with Senn that it would be rash to let philosophical foundations be a justification for using Bayesian methods.  Rather, my work on the philosophy of statistics is intended to demonstrate how Bayesian inference can fit into a falsificationist philosophy that I am comfortable with on general grounds.
Categories: Philosophy of Statistics, Statistics, U-Phil | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “U-PHIL: Stephen Senn (2): Andrew Gelman

  1. Which among I. J. Good’s 46,656 varieties of Bayesian are you?

    • I think that this business of pointing to zillions of varieties is just a cop-out that allows some people to say, whatever I do, it’s Bayesian deep down (BADD), or it has Bayesian grounding . There has to be something that counts as not-X for the claim of holding X to have any merit. It’s not that it matters which account is getting credit, whatever that means. It’s that failing to be very clear on the underlying foundations creates an obstacle to doing things better, or to even understanding what the criteria should be for using a given method for a certain problem, or so I think.

  2. Pingback: Gelman est effectivement une erreur statistician | Error Statistics Philosophy

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: