[skissane]

> - subjective Bayes is the strawman that frequentist academics like to attack

I don’t get what all the hate for subjective Bayesianism is. It seems the most philosophically defensible approach, in that all it assumes is our own subjective judgements of likelihood, the idea that we can quantify them (however in exactly), and the idea (avoid Dutch books) that we want to be consistent (most people do).

Whereas, objective Bayes is basically subjective Bayes from the viewpoint of an idealised perfectly rational agent - and “perfectly rational” seems philosophically a lot more expensive than anything subjective Bayes relies on.