Comment on "Bayesian astrostatistics: a backward look to the future" by Tom Loredo, arXiv:1208.3036

TL;DR

This paper critiques specific logical inconsistencies in Loredo's 2012 comments on Andreon's chapter, clarifying misunderstandings and emphasizing the chapter's complexity and scope.

Contribution

It highlights the importance of accurate interpretation and classification of scientific work in astrostatistics discussions.

Findings

Loredo's classification of Andreon's chapter is inconsistent.

Misunderstanding of the chapter's content led to incorrect criticisms.

The chapter discusses complex models, contrary to Loredo's simplification.

Abstract

This short note points out two of the incongruences that I find in the Loredo (2012) comments on Andreon (2012), i.e. on my chapter written for the book "Astrostatistical Challenges for the New Astronomy". First, I find illogic the Loredo decision of putting my chapter among those presenting simple models, because one of the models illustrated in my chapter is qualified by him as "impressing for his complexity". Second, Loredo criticizes my chapter at one location confusing it with another paper by another author, because my chapter do not touch the subject mentioned by Loredo (2012) critics, the comparison between Bayesian and frequentist fitting models.