Abstract
Frequentists and Bayesians disagree about the soundness of performing calculations based, in an important part, on prior information. The disagreement goes back to a basic philosophical disagreement about how to conceptualize the meaning of probability. As frequentists and Bayesians use the term differently, there is a basic philosophical incommensurability. However, this philosophical incommensurability need not imply an empirical incommensurability. It is possible for there to be, simultaneously, philosophical incommensurability and empirical commensurability. This possibility implies consequences that this article discusses
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
