Fraudulent until proved innocent: Is this really the new “Bayesian Forensics”? (rejected post)
“Fraudulent until proved innocent: Is this really the new “Bayesian Forensics”? (rejected post)
2 thoughts on ““Fraudulent until proved innocent: Is this really the new “Bayesian Forensics”? (rejected post)”
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.
The Statistics Wars & Their Casualties
LSE PH500 Research Seminar (May 21-June 25, 2020): Controversies in Phil Stat
Summer Seminar 2019 (article)
Experts convene to explore new philosophy of statistics field
Error Statistics Philosophy 
What a fascinating “rejected post” topic. I will read it very carefully to see if I have anything to contribute on this …
I haven’t had time to study or post the longer story in relation to Jens Forster.