<p>Statistics tragic, most definitely an objective Bayesian style statistician.  I find myself quite compelled by the "probability as extended logic" philosophy, particularly the work of Edwin Jaynes.  I have also derived on of the most important rules ever: BAYESIAN+JAYNES=JAYNESIAN. lol.  But seriously, I am in awe of this guy: he is like the "Jesus" of statistical thinking.</p>

<p>I also quite dislike the use of the word "prior beliefs" which gets attach to prior probabilities in the Bayesian world.  It brings over the wrong connotations - I think "prior assumptions" or "prior state of knowledge" better describes what is actually encapsulated by "the prior" of Bayesian statistics.</p>

<p>Which is worse: a frequentist who refuses to use prior's (but is happy to assume a likelihood) or a subjective Bayesian who claims that they can be whatever you "believe"?</p>

probabilityislogic