I agree with Gibbs that the message of the base
rate literature reads differently depending on which null hypothesis
is used to frame the issue. But I argue that the normative null
hypothesis, H0: “People use base rates in a
Bayesian manner,” is no longer appropriate. I also challenge
Adler's distinction between unused and ignored base
rates, and criticize Goodie's reluctance to shift
research attention to the field. Macchi's arguments
about textual ambiguities in traditional base rate problems suggest
that empirical testing is needed to tease apart the effects of problem
clarification and problem framing. Macdonald's,
Fletcher's and Snow's skepticism about
the value of Bayesian methods in real world judgment tasks is treated
as a challenge for the next generation of empirical base rate
studies.
