|
|
|
|
|
by Sinbe
2646 days ago
|
|
> there is no reason to believe that the true value is closer to 21 than to, say, 3. I find this very silly, since if we ditch the arbitrary 0.95 and go with 0.999.. confidence interval of [-998, 1040] for example. How can one say that one cannot tell if which value is more likely, 21 or 1040? If this is an actual limitation of the frequentist model like you said, everybody should be a bayesian thinker then. And the "confidence interval" is just a quick way to communicate how wide and where the posterior bell curve is. |
|