Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • $\begingroup$ It’s worth mentioning, in view of Lindley’s paradox, that your inferences here are going to depend a lot on your prior. The uniform prior makes it really hard to reject when the true probability is close to, but not quite, 1/2, which is probably the case with an actual coin. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2018 at 20:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ True, but it is inherently difficult to distinguish parameter values that are close together, and this naturally requires a lot of data. So I don't really see that as a drawback of the method; it is just a natural aspect of statistics. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 27, 2018 at 0:37
  • $\begingroup$ It's hard to distinguish points that are close together, sure. But Bayesian inference under a uniform prior diverges drastically from Frequentist inference in this particular case. I can decrease the Bayes factor in favor of the alternative by a factor of 5 just by consider a Uniform(.4,.6) prior under the alternative rather than a Uniform(0,1); this applies in settings where the Uniform(.4,.6) prior and Uniform(0,1) prior result in essentially the same inference about $\pi$ when you don't include a point mass at $1/2$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 27, 2018 at 2:11
  • $\begingroup$ Let me see if I can dumb down your answer a bit: We basically comsider not just the probability of experiencing a result for the null hypothesis, we alsp consider the probability of experiencing the result we got given a whole range of heads probabilities from 0 to 1 $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 2:59
  • $\begingroup$ @moonman: Yes, that is the essence of Bayesian analysis --- we have an unknown probability of heads, represented by a parameter $\theta$, and we give this a prior distribution and then determine the posterior from the data. In hypothesis testing this generally entails giving a distribution under specific values, not just the general alternative hypothesis. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 3:39