[parpfish]

I don’t think mathematical ability has much to do with it.

I think it’s useful to break down the anti-Bayesians into statisticians and non-statistician scientists.

The former are mathematically savvy enough to understand bayes but object on philosophical grounds; the later don’t care about the philosophy so much as they feel like an attack on frequentism is an attack on their previous research and they take it personally

[mturmon]

This is a reasonable heuristic. I studied in a program that (for both philosophical and practical reasons) questioned whether the Bayesian formalism should be applied as widely as it is. (Which for many people is, basically everywhere.)

There are some cases, that do arise in practice, where you can’t impose a prior, and/or where the “Dutch book” arguments to justify Bayesian decisions don’t apply.