  We marshall the arguments for preferring Bayesian hypothesis testing and
confidence sets to frequentist ones. We define admissible solutions to
inference problems, noting that Bayesian solutions are admissible. We give
seven weaker common-sense criteria for solutions to inference problems, all
failed by these frequentist methods but satisfied by any admissible method. We
note that pseudo-Bayesian methods made by handicapping Bayesian methods to
satisfy criteria on type I error rate makes them frequentist not Bayesian in
nature.
  We give five examples showing the differences between Bayesian and
frequentist methods; the first requiring little calculus, the second showing in
abstract what is wrong with these frequentist methods, the third to illustrate
information conservation, the fourth to show that the same problems arise in
everyday statistical problems, and the fifth to illustrate how on some
real-life inference problems Bayesian methods require less data than fixed
sample-size (resp. pseudo-Bayesian) frequentist hypothesis testing by factors
exceeding 3000 (resp 300) without recourse to informative priors.
  To address the issue of different parties with opposing interests reaching
agreement on a prior, we illustrate the beneficial effects of a Bayesian "Let
the data decide" policy both on results under a wide variety of conditions and
on motivation to reach a common prior by consent.
  We show that in general the frequentist confidence level contains less
relevant Shannon information than the Bayesian posterior, and give an example
where no deterministic frequentist critical regions give any relevant
information even though the Bayesian posterior contains up to the maximum
possible amount. In contrast use of the Bayesian prior allows construction of
non-deterministic critical regions for which the Bayesian posterior can be
recovered from the frequentist confidence.
