Role of Bayes reasoning in book

[matthew-brett]

Current rendering

Original from Simon: 29-Chap-25

[stefanv]

@matthew-brett @ben-herbst and I spoke about this, and we were wondering if we want to either move this chapter earlier, or introduce a "bridge" to Bayes reasoning as an additional chapter earlier in the book?

[matthew-brett]

Well - yes - in general - go for it - there's no particular reason that chapter should be late. But I suppose we have to think about what we'd do differently with that chapter early.

[ben-herbst]

Perhaps explaining the difference between frequentist and Bayesian approaches, illustrated by simple examples as usual.

[matthew-brett]

I have something in my head about that - that frequentist boils down to "not Bayesian" and not Bayesian means - a program of linguistic hygeine to defend the word "probability". So the frequentist move says - Ok - I agree that it is reasonable to use values of - say - degrees of belief - "as if" they were probabilities, but you can't call them probabilities. And to make clear that there is no dispute between the Bayesians and the frequentists on Bayes Rule - just in what can be P(A) and P(B) and so on.

[matthew-brett]

Let's leave this open for now - we do need to think more about that chapter.