I don't mean to segue here, but I got caught in a logical argument that ended abruptly with no definitive answer.
I mentioned the Monty Hall problem to a friend (an engineer) and discussed the statical analysis done on this issue. (ie, statistically it's better to switch doors after the first is opened, as it improves your odds of winning slightly)
But he only answered with "nope, Bayes' Theorem says the odds are the same no matter what you do". The only other point he added was that if you do something only once, you have the same odds every single time.
I found this frustrating simplistic, because we _know_ through testing that this isn't true. That the odds are better if you switch doors.
Is this the fanaticism of Bayesians? He even called me a "frequentist" as if it were some kind of pejorative.
I've researched this issue, and even mentioned to him his logical flaw (you choose twice, not once) and still "Bayes theorum says there's no difference and you're wrong because you are a frequentist"
sigh.
I mentioned the Monty Hall problem to a friend (an engineer) and discussed the statical analysis done on this issue. (ie, statistically it's better to switch doors after the first is opened, as it improves your odds of winning slightly)
But he only answered with "nope, Bayes' Theorem says the odds are the same no matter what you do". The only other point he added was that if you do something only once, you have the same odds every single time.
I found this frustrating simplistic, because we _know_ through testing that this isn't true. That the odds are better if you switch doors.
Is this the fanaticism of Bayesians? He even called me a "frequentist" as if it were some kind of pejorative.
I've researched this issue, and even mentioned to him his logical flaw (you choose twice, not once) and still "Bayes theorum says there's no difference and you're wrong because you are a frequentist"
sigh.