All commentaries concern priors. In this issue of Psychological Science, Cumming graphically demonstrates the implications of our ignorance of δ. Doros and Geier found mistakes in my argument and provide the Bayesian account. Macdonald notes that my program is like Fisher’s, Fisher’s is like the Bayesians’, and the Bayesians’ is incoherent. These Commentaries strengthen the foundation while leaving all conclusions intact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter R. Killeen (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: