On 11/8/2010 4:53 AM, Croft Daniel (RBF) NOC wrote:
> Would someone mind translating this debate into layman language for
> people like me who are new to statistics?
>
> Am I right in thinking that the people who argue for using Bayesian
> statistical methods want to consider what we know already when
> analysing new data. They do this by estimating values to represent
> that prior knowledge that then affect the analysis of the new data.
>
> The non-Bayesian people consider each new test with no prior
> considerations, so that any result is possible.
>
> And do these two camps generally split into Science-Based Medicine
> people and Evidence-Based Medicine people respectively?
As I understand it, Bayesian statistics represents a formal way to
consider what is already known when analyzing new data. Classical
statistics does this, but only informally. For example, the requirement
for replication of results that contradict previously held beliefs is
one way to informally incorporate prior knowledge.
I also believe that SBM would like to claim Bayesian methods as their
own. But there is nothing in EBM that prevents you from adopting a
Bayesian approach.
I raised this question in my response to the original blog post that
started this thread.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8151&cpage=1#comment-58973
We'll see what their response is.
--
Steve Simon, Standard Disclaimer
Sign up for The Monthly Mean, the newsletter that
dares to call itself "average" at www.pmean.com/news
|