CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Why isn't every physicist a Bayesian? Export

American Journal of Physics, Vol. 63, No. 5. (1995), pp. 398-410.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


CoffeeIV's tags for this article

bayesian

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

Physicists embarking on seemingly routine error analyses are finding themselves grappling with major conceptual issues which have divided the statistics community for years. While the philosophical aspects of the debate may be endless, a practicing experimenter must choose a way to report results. The results can depend on which of the two major frameworks, classical or Bayesian, one adopts. This article reviews reasons why most data analysis in particle physics has traditionally been carried out within the classical framework, and why this will probably continue to be the case. However, Bayesian reasoning has recently made significant inroads in some published work in this field, and many other particle physicists may frequently think in a Bayesian manner without realizing it. I illustrate the issues involved with a few simple, commonly encountered examples which reveal how each framework can sometimes lead to unsatisfying results. ©1995 American Association of Physics Teachers.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.