Ah, if you start quoting Good and Rubin, how can I compete?!

]]>systems give different answers it is a sign that we need to dig deeper’ (omitting, unintentionally the full stop to which Xi’an refers).

It is thus clear that I am not hostile to applied Bayesian inference. I am hostile to extreme hype about such an approach. (The current literature on meta-analysis is a case in point where the most ridiculous claims circulate about an approach that produces pretty much what iteratively re-weighted least squares does.)

In fact, I don’t really believe that Bayesian inference is wrong. (I am tempted to quip ‘it is not even wrong’.,,, and I suppose I have just yielded to temptation :-)) What I was claiming is that it is not usually in practice quite what it is claimed to be and if you tried to delude yourself that what passes for Bayesian analysis (often very good and interesting as applied statistics) really was what it is often claimed to be, you could be led astray.

In theory, Bayesian analysis ought to be a very promising way of dealing with nuisance parameters. In practice I can only characterise much of the work in this direction as disappointing.

If I can quote a great Bayesian quoting another, ” I agree with Herman Rubin’s remark, at the Waterloo conference on scientific inference in 1970, that a good Bayesian does better than a non-Bayesian but a Bad Bayesian gets clobbered.” Jack Good, Good Thinking, P139

]]>Sorry for the pun: for me, markets, rationality, and morals (understood as the French translation into *morale*) do not seem to get together very well, esp. in the current times! This being said, I appreciate this special topic and do not mean in any way that the journal does not make sense! Again, sorry for the pun…

I am a bit surprised that you consider “Rationality, markets and morals” as a “rather weird combination”. It is a classical combination of topics in economics and philosophy. And it seems to me that just now all the world is talking and writing about it.

Of course, we very much appreciate the fact that you have looked at our sprecial issue (or special topic, as we call it, since we have no issues). Reading, in addition, some of our other papers may convince you that our journal title makes sense.

Best wishes

Max Albert

]]>