2044-8317/asset/olbannerleft.png?v=1&s=8856da07bc63124271bd41692effae1b4eb4d01b)
2044-8317/asset/olbannerright.png?v=1&s=0e71c188d8e53b18773ec432a90707d049af0643)
Commentary
You have free access to this content
Comment on Gelman and Shalizi
Article first published online: 28 SEP 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02065.x
© 2012 The British Psychological Society
Issue
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Volume 66, Issue 1, pages 65–67, February 2013
Additional Information
How to Cite
Senn, S. (2013), Comment on Gelman and Shalizi. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66: 65–67. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02065.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 17 JAN 2013
- Article first published online: 28 SEP 2012
- Manuscript Received: 30 APR 2012
References
- (1997). Prequential analysis. In S. Kotz, C. B. Read & D. L. Banks (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences update (pp. 464–470). New York: Wiley.
- , & (2013). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 8–38. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x
- (1983). Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- (1998). Mathematics: Governess or handmaiden? The Statistician, 47, 251–259. doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00130Direct Link:
- (2011). You may believe you are a Bayesian but you are probably wrong. Rationality, Markets and Morals, 2, 48–66. doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.128