This xkcd comic (Frequentists vs. Bayesians) makes fun of a frequentist statistician who derives an obviously wrong result.
However it seems to me that his reasoning is actually correct in the sense that it follows the standard frequentist methodology.
So my question is "does he correctly apply the frequentist methodology?"
- If no: what would be a correct frequentist inference in this scenario? How to integrate "prior knowledge" about the sun stability in the frequentist methodology?
- If yes: wtf? ;-)