Comments on Theory of Probability revisited

“…it would require that a procedure is dismissed because, when combined with information which it doesn’t require and which may not exist, it disagrees with a procedure that disagrees with itself.”

Stephen Senn just sent us his comments on the Statistical Science paper about Jeffreys’ Theory of Probability. Besides being awfully nice, these comments mostly focus on Laplace’s succession law which, as posted earlier, is an endless source for debate! Stephen notes the trick of keeping weights at the extremes, also exploited by Berger, Bernardo, and Sun. (For a change, black crows are substituted to black swans.)

2 Responses to “Comments on Theory of Probability revisited”

  1. […] the paper somehow intersects with the comments Stephen made on our review of Harold Jeffreys’ Theory of Probability a while ago. It contains […]

  2. […] as a discussion paper. The discussants are JosĂ© Bernardo, Andrew Gelman, Rob Kass, Denis Lindley, Stephen Senn, and Arnold Zellner. We have posted our reply on arXiv for completeness. The discussion was […]

Leave a Reply to May I believe I am a Bayesian?! « Xi'an's Og Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.