[R-sig-eco] Are likelihood approaches frequentist?

[Rubén Roa-Ureta]

Rubén Roa-Ureta wrote:

Two other great statisticians that subscribe to the likelihoodist school 
of inference are Jim Lindsey and John Nelder.
> At least once a year I hear someone at a meeting say that there are 
> two modes of inference:
> frequentist and Bayesian. That this sort of nonsense should be so 
> regularly propagated shows how
> much we have to do. To begin with there is a flourishing school of 
> likelihood inference, to which I
> belong.
Sorry, the above is a quote from John Nelder, The Statistician, vol. 48, 
issue 2, p. 264.
Rubén

>
>
>>>  I would also add that different scientists have different
>>> goals (belief, prediction, decision, assessing evidence). I too
>>> think Royall makes a good case for the primacy of
>>> assessing strength-of-evidence, and he gives the clearest
>>> explanation I have seen, but I wouldn't completely
>>> rule out the other frameworks.
>>>     
> I tend to think there is a place for Bayesian inference in prediction.
>
> Rubén
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-ecology mailing list
> R-sig-ecology at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-ecology
>
>