Well, it's not like it's a new idea. While the ancient accounts are conflicting in the details, there is no question that the discovery of irrational numbers was a fairly big deal to the Pythagoreans of the fifth century BC and that it resulted in more than a few debates where dogma was valued over evidence.
As an ardent Christian, I'm not bashing religion (though I distinguish it from the higher calling of faith, which I would define as belief that transcends catechism). And, to be fair, Krushke's diatribe against frequentist hypothesis testing in my Bayesian stats book (which goes on for two full chapters) could be framed as a legitimate philosophical position rather than a statement of faith. But, that's not how he worded it.
I really have no problem with the fact that frequentists and Bayesians disagree on methods. Nor do I have a problem that the disagreement is not one of technique, but a fundamental understanding of what constitutes something as central as a random variable. What I don't particularly care for is that the arguments are always framed as "the other side is just nutty for not seeing how obvious this is." We're not talking about disenfranchised primary voters here. These are some of the greatest minds on the planet. The fact that there is disagreement should be cause for joy, not alarm. It means we've got a meaty topic on our hands. How is that not a good thing? Debate away, but let's show a little respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment