> Oh please. You can do plenty of psuedoscience and superstition with good old frequentist statistics.
That's not really the point. The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet; it's not saying that other methods of statistics are free from problems.
> The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet
But it's not really saying it in passing; the headline is taken from that paragraph. At that point it almost feels like a takedown of a strawman Bayesian.
That's not really the point. The article is simply saying that Bayesian methods are not a silver bullet; it's not saying that other methods of statistics are free from problems.