[derbOac]

I had the same reaction?

We don't actually care at all about what happened in the two experiments per se, we care about the information provided by the experiments about future or other events.

If somehow we learned that both experiments were totally unreplicable and a product purely of that time and location with no implications for anything else ever before or since we wouldn't care about them except maybe as a historical curiosity.

Intentionally is a red herring; what matters is our expectation about what might be observed if we were to repeat the experiments again.

In that sense, there's variability in the second experiment's results due to sample size being random. So we interpret and infer based on that potential experiment we could do, not what happened to be observed at a particular moment.

I'm also confused about what this has to do with Bayesian versus non-Bayesian inference as you could approach either experiment from either paradigm, and there are different forms of Bayesianism, including nonsubjective Bayesianism.

[kgwgk]

> We don't actually care at all about what happened in the two experiments per se, we care about the information provided by the experiments about future or other events.

How can the experiments provide relevant information other than through what happened?

If what happened is exactly the same (first patient with such and such characteristics had this outcome, etc.) what information can be provided by the things that didn’t happen in either?

How could it matter that the things that didn’t happen in one experiment are different from the things that didn’t happen in the other when we are interested in the information provided by what did happen?

We don't actually care at all about the distribution of things that could have happened per se, we care about the information provided by the experiments about future or other events.