In tech circles, it seems that Bayesian statistics is often favored over classical frequentist statistics. In my study of both Bayesian and frequentist statistics, it seems that the results of a Bayesian analysis are generally more intuitive, such as when comparing Bayesian credible intervals to frequentist confidence intervals. It also seems like Bayesian analysis avoids what I think is one of the most serious problems in analysis, the multiple comparisons problem. It's been easy for me to find any number of Bayesian critiques of frequentist stats, but I have rarely seen frequentist defenses against Bayesian stats. This may simply be because I mostly read technology related sites as opposed to more general statistics oriented sites. As such, I would really appreciate hearing some frequentist critiques of Bayesian stats. I feel like the situation can't be as cut and dry as one being better than the other in all things, so I would like to acquire a more balanced perspective by hearing about the other side. Thanks!
~bayesian logicism<p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/</a> :<p>> It is now generally held that the core idea of Bayesian logicism is fatally flawed—that syntactic logical structure cannot be the sole determiner of the degree to which premises inductively support conclusions. [...]
Read an old stats text. One reason why Bayesian statistics was less popular in the past was that people didn't know how to do it, except in special cases. Techniques have e loved since then.