Experimentally, can I say frequentist actually have a better representation of the “event” to observe? It doesn’t require the “observer” to make any prior assertion about the distribution. This is especially true when we are gathering more and more data with ease. Those data might not be of high quality. But the volume can simply “wash out” those quality issues as long as the collection method is not biased. I always have this nagging feeling that bayesian is not a very practical tool when it comes to experimental science.
Experimentally, can I say frequentist actually have a better representation of the “event” to observe? It doesn’t require the “observer” to make any prior assertion about the distribution. This is especially true when we are gathering more and more data with ease. Those data might not be of high quality. But the volume can simply “wash out” those quality issues as long as the collection method is not biased. I always have this nagging feeling that bayesian is not a very practical tool when it comes to experimental science.