Skip to main content
Cross Validated

Return to Question

deleted 1 character in body; edited tags
Source Link
Xi'an
Xi'an
  • 107.7k
  • 13
  • 190
  • 676

Why even have non-informative priors? They don't provide information about $\theta$. So why use them? Why not only use informative priors? For example, suppose $ \theta \in [0,1]$. Then is $\theta \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$ is a non-informative prior for $\theta$.?

Why even have non-informative priors? They don't provide information about $\theta$. So why use them? Why not only use informative priors? For example, suppose $ \theta \in [0,1]$. Then $\theta \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$ is a non-informative prior for $\theta$.

Why even have non-informative priors? They don't provide information about $\theta$. So why use them? Why not only use informative priors? For example, suppose $ \theta \in [0,1]$. Then is $\theta \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$ a non-informative prior for $\theta$?

Source Link
Robbiee
Robbiee
  • 221
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

What is the point of non-informative priors?

Why even have non-informative priors? They don't provide information about $\theta$. So why use them? Why not only use informative priors? For example, suppose $ \theta \in [0,1]$. Then $\theta \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$ is a non-informative prior for $\theta$.