Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

“Applied Statistics”

Abstract

IN his review of my book “Statistical Methods in Electrical Engineering” (Nature, March 19, p. 484), Mr. F. Downton criticizes my statement that Bayes' theorem is controversial. The heading of the paragraph in Sir Ronald Fisher's book which I cited is “The Rejection of Inverse Probability”. Coupled with the lack of mention of Bayes beyond the introductory chapter, I can only take this to mean that the author did not accept the rigorous validity of anything which Bayes formulated. To me, therefore, it appears that Mr. Downton's statement is demonstrably untrue. Faced with this controversial issue when writing a practical book, I decided to mention the existence of the controversy and then take a firm decision (the opposite of Fisher's) which was justified primarily on empirical grounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

BELL, D. “Applied Statistics”. Nature 175, 1004 (1955). https://doi.org/10.1038/1751004a0

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/1751004a0

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing