From http://www.bayesianphilosophy.com/dont-ban-p-values/:

When Frequentists dominated statistics from about 1930 to 1990 or so, they engaged in every kind of draconian, career destroying, and underhanded method possible to squash Bayesians.

I wonder at which degree this claim is exaggerated ? (I hope it is exaggerated...) I heard/read this kind of claims several times with various degrees of intensity and I wonder whether it is completely baseless or comes from specific striking articles/attacks/periods/... ?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I can't see how it could not be an exaggeration. But it does strike me as typical of the things you see written in the perennial Frequentist-Bayesian squabbling. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica May 3 '16 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ @gung Agreed but is it completely baseless ? or does it come from specific striking articles or attacks ? (thks udpate my question) $\endgroup$ – peuhp May 3 '16 at 18:35
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Wow. Personal opinion here, but taking everything from that blog with a heavy grain of salt. Entertaining, but a little off the rails. $\endgroup$ – Cliff AB May 3 '16 at 18:55
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Although it has been recommended that this thread be made CW, it seems to me that it could have a factual answer supported by appropriate (historical) research and authorities and as such does not seem to require CW status. However, any polemical replies that attempt to rehash the Frequentist-vs-Bayesian argument would be inappropriate for our format. $\endgroup$ – whuber May 3 '16 at 19:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @whuber Perhaps a candidate for history of science.SE? $\endgroup$ – Sycorax May 3 '16 at 21:21

This could be an interpretation (and possibly exagerration) of the less tolerant side of Fisher's personality (in his role as frequentist advocate in chief). For example see Joan Box's comment of Fisher's personality in


and note it is quoted by someone who is very well disposed towards Fisher.

Fisher rejected Harold Jeffreys' early development of Bayesian statistics, and attacked it vigorously.The book "Interpreting Probability: Controversies and Developments in the Early Twentieth Century", by David Howie (Cambridge University Press, 2002) apparently has coverage of a lot of the back and forth that went on.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer and reference. I lend a copy of Howie book, it looks interesting. I hope I will find the time to read it. $\endgroup$ – peuhp May 9 '16 at 12:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.