Discussion of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle"

TL;DR

This paper critically examines Mayo's recent critique of Birnbaum's argument for the likelihood principle, arguing that her claims are based on misunderstandings and that the original arguments remain valid.

Contribution

It clarifies the historical and logical context of Birnbaum's argument, defending its validity against recent critiques and highlighting misunderstandings in Mayo's critique.

Findings

Birnbaum's argument remains valid upon clarification.

Mayo's critique is based on misunderstandings of Birnbaum's reasoning.

Historical arguments for the likelihood principle are reaffirmed.

Abstract

The paper by Mayo claims to provide a new clarification and critique of Birnbaum's argument for showing that sufficiency and conditionality principles imply the likelihood principle. However, much of the arguments go back to arguments made thirty to forty years ago. Also, the main contention in the paper, that Birnbaum's arguments are not valid, seems to rest on a misunderstanding. [arXiv:1302.7021]