[RobertRoberts]

I got in an argument with a friend (a mechanical/electrical engineer) who knew about bayesian statistics. My other friend, a PhD in statistics, whom I had many discussions about because both personal interest and work interests, had supplied me with my modicum of statics knowledge.

My engineer friend called my PhD friend a "frequentist", like it was a dirty word, despite only having one, maybe two, classes in college about bayesian math/statistics/whatever (my ignorance).

This quote jumped out at me in the article:

"I wanted to write a book on Bayesian statistics that really anyone could pick up and use to gain real intuitions for how to think statistically and solve real problems using statistics."

In the context of the statement, it sounds like he is claimin any non-bayesian statistics is useless (or less valuable/reliable at best) than other forms of statistical analysis?

[jmvoodoo]

Having known Will when I lived in Reno I'm certain your focus should be on "anyone could pick up and use" and not any statement about the usefulness of other approaches. The Will I know is fundamentally about teaching things in very easy to understand ways, and curious about all approaches to solving a problem.

[brylie]

It just reads to me like he wants to make statistics accessible to a wide audience.

[jdreaver]

That's not how I'm reading that quote at all. Saying Bayesian stats can solve real problems doesn't imply frequentist stats can't.