As Andrew Critch [6] insightfully points out, the Bayesians vs. frequentists debate is really three debates at once, centering around one or more of the following arguments:...
I think there’s a much more important and fundamental debate you’re missing in your taxonomy, and one of the wellsprings of LW criticism: the sub-category of frequentist techniques called null hypothesis testing. There are legitimate & powerful frequentist criticisms of NHST, and these are accepted and echoed as major arguments by many who are otherwise on an opposite side for one of those other debates.
For my part, I’m sure that NHST is badly misleading and wrong, but I’m not so sure that I can tar all the other frequentist techniques with the same brush.
I think there’s a much more important and fundamental debate you’re missing in your taxonomy, and one of the wellsprings of LW criticism: the sub-category of frequentist techniques called null hypothesis testing. There are legitimate & powerful frequentist criticisms of NHST, and these are accepted and echoed as major arguments by many who are otherwise on an opposite side for one of those other debates.
For my part, I’m sure that NHST is badly misleading and wrong, but I’m not so sure that I can tar all the other frequentist techniques with the same brush.