Presumably. I am not trying to convince anyone, though. Or to convert anyone. Simply stating the reasons why I think it is a coherent perspective.

]]>well, that is what I thought too fo r a long time. but what convinced me is Cox’s theorem. have a look a E.T. Jaynes book Probability as Logic of Science.

]]>I give a collection of reasons for using non-informative priors in The Bayesian Choice (Section 3.5). My favourite is Wald’s complete class theorems, namely that all admissible statistical procedures are Bayes procedures or limits of Bayes procedures.

]]>*In making inferences about hypotheses without a physical/frequentist prior distribution. ]]>