To my (limited) understanding, Bayesian statistics are just as subjective. If you and I start with different priors, and are then are fed the same evidence, we can end up with vastly different conclusions.
Since priors are defined as a function of my state of mind (or state of ignorance, as it were), it seems pretty subjective that the 'result' should depend so heavily on my initial state of mind.
E.T. Jaynes' book has a example of this with regard to E.S.P. research (I believe http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc5d.ps is the relevant chapter - but it's been a year or two since I've read the book).
A real statistician should feel free to correct me though - I'm more of an algebra guy ...
Since priors are defined as a function of my state of mind (or state of ignorance, as it were), it seems pretty subjective that the 'result' should depend so heavily on my initial state of mind.
E.T. Jaynes' book has a example of this with regard to E.S.P. research (I believe http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc5d.ps is the relevant chapter - but it's been a year or two since I've read the book).
A real statistician should feel free to correct me though - I'm more of an algebra guy ...