Frequentists vs. Bayesians

In this video, we look at the frequentist and Bayesian methods for presenting scientific results. The difference between these methods is a source of confusion for scientists and the general public alike. Often, scientific results are presented using frequentist methods, but are incorrectly interpreted as Bayesian statements.

Here, we discuss what information each of these methods attempts to communicate.

A highly relevant xkcd comic about the sun exploding!:

Other links mentioned in the video:
Hypothesis Testing Playlist:

What's a P-Value?:

Statistical Significance:

Minicourse on Error Bars, Measurements, and Decision Analysis:

Bayesian Playlist:

Coin Flipping, Bayesian Probabilities, and Priors:

[priyankaschnell]

this is the perspective l could follow and actually get a clear understanding from out of all the sources I've come across.

Thank you for creating this video!
To many more.

[kyle]

Your bayesian example is a good example of how black swan events can mess up predictions about the future, or be hard to predict

[MrBendybruce]

What a great video. Thankyou so much. I find this particularly insightful, when it comes to the apparent conflict between the viewpoint of Avi Loeb, and the more traditional scientific community, who (correct me if I am wrong) are making a Bayesian assessment regarding Oumuamua, such that the probability of its origins being of alien intelligent design, are by definition extraordinarily unlikely. On the other side of the coin, Loeb seems to be arguing that this "prior" is flawed, and indicative of humanity assuming it is special. I really can't say where I actually fall on this particular debate, only that your video has brought some new insight into the nature of it. ps I am visually impaired so sorry if any typos

[leo]

As a Bayesian Conspirator, there's nothing I hate more than hearing about the Filthy Frequentists and their ongoing heresies. But at least the presenter had a very pretty voice to ease the pain.

[ceien]

Most practical and careful explanation I've seen so far, with very helpful examples - thank you! Do you share your slides anywhere (e.g., as a PDF)?

[taylorism]

Thank you—you do a great job of explaining this issue! I have a friend, who was a computer science/physics double major, and he said that his comp sci classes used Bayesian statistics, whereas his physics classes used frequentist statistics. Do you think his experience is common, and if so, would it relate to physicists dealing with repeated experiments more than computer scientists?

[akkesm]

This was a good explanation. Thank you!

[phyzwiz]

I'm a bit confused at the prior choice of 1% in the coin flipping example. If it were up to me, I would pick the prior to be 50% because I don't know anything about that coin, and I want to learn everything I can from the data. In that case, 5 flips will tell me (using the same equation that was shown) that the probability that it's a fair coin is 1.5/(50+1.5) so 2.9%. What is wrong with my reasoning?

[sherifffruitfly]

Good explainer. I do think however that the bayesian has a better answer to the rando than merely "sure it's unusual". The bayesian has available to her to respond "it sure IS unusual - THAT'S WHY I'VE REVISED MY PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT FROM 1% UP TO 24%". Easier to say in the language of odds, using the bayes factor, but you get the idea.

[kyle]

Now that computers do all the math bayesian statistics might actually become more popular

[BANKO]

The +/- 11 GeV/C² came from nowhere. How would you know this is equal to sigma?