HN Hall of Fame Weekly email

It is time to stop teaching frequentism to non-statisticians (2012)

arxiv.org Research & data Research papers Mathematics & science Candidate
Screenshot of arxiv.org captured 2026-07-20
Page preview · captured 2026-07-20

Resurfaced independently across 3 calendar years, with breakout response in 2 of them.

submissions
4
submitters
2
observed span
2015–2025
peak thread · 100 comments
100 pts
latest 20+ return · 2025-05-24
94 pts

Submission timeline

2007–2026

One slot for every year since HN launched. Height is that year's peak points; orange marks a 100+ point or 50+ comment breakout. Select a bar to open its strongest thread.

First comments on top threads

HN comment order

Regardless of the pros and cons of Bayesian methods, here is what I believe is needed: - Pre-register all studies, declaring sample sizes and power analysis. - Report results regardless of outcome. Eliminate the "we only publish stat sig results" baloney. - Report confidence/credible intervals, adjusting for multiple comparisons as appropriate. Plot the posterior distribution of the effect size if appropriate. - Publish all data and code. - Provide funding for duplicating important studies.

Yes old, but even worse, it is not a well argued review. Yes, Bayesian statistics are slowly gaining an upper hand at higher levels of statistics, but you know what should be taught to first year undergrads in science? Exploratory data analysis! One of the first books I voluntarily read in stats was Mosteller and Tukey’s gem: Data Analysis and Regression. A gem. Another great book is Judea Pearl’s Book of Why.

The first top-level comment from each of the four biggest threads, in HN’s own order. Excerpts are shortened; open a comment for full context.

Breakout years
2

100+ points or 50+ comments

Total points
196

reference only — not used in Hall rules or ranking

Total comments
174

reference only — not used in Hall rules or ranking

Every submission