It's been a long time since I've been active on CV and I don't want to botch it by asking an off-topic, opinion-based, or duplicate question. Here is my attempt:

> 
> How to answer to critiques about the inapplicability of the framework of frequentist statistics to the real world?
> 
> 
> I often hear the argument that frequentist stats is useless or contorted because no event is precisely repeatable, let alone repeatable infinitely many times, and because there are no iid sequences in the real world, since "causal factors cause distributions shifts (?!)". Here is an example of the egregious use of this sort of arguments:
> 
> 
> http://mitchgordon.me/math/2021/04/02/probability.html
> 
> 
> Having applied frequentist stat with success to real world problems for years, I couldn't disagree more with the argument(s). Can you help me finding the weak points of these arguments?
> 
> 
> 

For the record, I used to learn a few good answers against these arguments when I first studied probability theory, but I don't remember them at the moment.