I came across this post http://xkcd.com/1132/ and this image
I didn't get why the Bayesian statistician is saying no. Any suggestion
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
The idea is that the Bayesian has prior information suggesting that the probability that the machine is lying (1/36) is much higher than the probability that the sun exploded (about 0). So he assumes that the machine is lying. The frequentist, meanwhile, notes that the observed result would have been unlikely under the null hypothesis that the sun were still intact (the machine only lies and says "yes" about a 3% of the time in that scenario), so he rejects this hypothesis.
Andrew Gelman, a Bayesian, doesn't particularly like the comic, though. There's some good discussion in the comments of the page I linked to (including a comment by Randall Munroe, the author of XKCD).