You can get to a frequentist technique from a given instance of a bayesian 'trajectory', so I don't really understand what leg frequentistism has left to stand on? How is frequentistism more 'cautious'?
The anti-bayesian frequentist argument, especially re. priors has always reminded me of that story about Minksy and his student 'randomly wiring' his machine. http://magic-cookie.co.uk/jargon/mit_jargon.htm
" In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe" Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
The anti-bayesian frequentist argument, especially re. priors has always reminded me of that story about Minksy and his student 'randomly wiring' his machine. http://magic-cookie.co.uk/jargon/mit_jargon.htm
" In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe" Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened. "