The aim of this paper, triggered by some discussions in the astrophysics community raised by astro-ph/0508529, is to introduce the issue of `fits' from a probabilistic perspective (also known as Bayesian), with special attention to the construction of model that describes the `network of dependences' (a Bayesian network) that connects experimental observations to model parameters and upon which the probabilistic inference relies. The particular case of linear fit with errors on both axes and extra variance of the data points around the straight line (i.e. not accounted by the experimental errors) is shown in detail. Some questions related to the use of linear fit formulas to log-linearized exponential and power laws are also sketched, as well as the issue of systematic errors.

Testing hypotheses is an issue of primary importance in the scientific research, as well as in many other human activities. Much clarification about it can be achieved if the process of learning from data is framed in a stochastic model of causes and effects. Formulated with Poincare's words, the "essential problem of the experimental method" becomes then solving a "problem in the probability of causes", i.e. ranking the several hypotheses, that might be responsible for the observations, in credibility. This probabilistic approach to the problem (nowadays known as the Bayesian approach) differs from the standard (i.e. frequentistic) statistical methods of hypothesis tests. The latter methods might be seen as practical attempts of implementing the ideal of falsificationism, that can itself be viewed as an extension of the proof by contradiction of the classical logic to the experimental method. Some criticisms concerning conceptual as well as practical aspects of na\"\i ve falsificationism and conventional, frequentistic hypothesis tests are presented, and the alternative, probabilistic approach is outlined.

The problem of inferring the binomial parameter p from x successes obtained in n trials is reviewed and extended to take into account the presence of background, that can affect the data in two ways: a) fake successes are due to a background modeled as a Poisson process of known intensity; b) fake trials are due to a background modeled as a Poisson process of known intensity, each trial being characterized by a known success probability p_b.

The issue of asymmetric uncertainties resulting from fits, nonlinear propagation and systematic effects is reviewed. It is shown that, in all cases, whenever a published result is given with asymmetric uncertainties, the value of the physical quantity of interest is biased with respect to what would be obtained using at best all experimental and theoretical information that contribute to evaluate the combined uncertainty. The probabilistic solution to the problem is provided both in exact and in approximated forms.

Bayesian reasoning is applied to the data by the ROG Collaboration, in which gravitational wave (g.w.) signals are searched for in a coincidence experiment between Explorer and Nautilus. The use of Bayesian reasoning allows, under well defined hypotheses, even tiny pieces of evidence in favor of each model to be extracted from the data. The combination of the data of several experiments can therefore be performed in an optimal and efficient way. Some models for Galactic sources are considered and, within each model, the experimental result is summarized with the likelihood rescaled to the insensitivity limit value (``${\cal R}$ function''). The model comparison result is given in in terms of Bayes factors, which quantify how the ratio of beliefs about two alternative models are modified by the experimental observation

Data obtained during five months of 2001 with the gravitational wave (GW) detectors EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were studied in correlation with the gamma ray burst data (GRB) obtained with the BeppoSAX satellite. During this period BeppoSAX was the only GRB satellite in operation, while EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were the only GW detectors in operation. No correlation between the GW data and the GRB bursts was found. The analysis, performed over 47 GRB's, excludes the presence of signals of amplitude h >=1.2 * 10^{-18}, with 95 % probability, if we allow a time delay between GW bursts and GRB within +-400 s, and h >= 6.5 * 10^{-19}, if the time delay is within +- 5 s. The result is also provided in form of scaled likelihood for unbiased interpretation and easier use for further analysis.

This paper is meant as a contribution to the often debated subject of how to combine data which appear to be in mutual disagreement. As a practical example, the epsilon-prime/epsilon determinations have been considered.

We consider the issue of reporting the result of search experiment in the most unbiased and efficient way, i.e. in a way which allows an easy interpretation and combination of results and which do not depend on whether the experimenters believe or not to having found the searched-for effect. Since this work uses the language of Bayesian theory, to which most physicists are not used, we find that it could be useful to practitioners to have in a single paper a simple presentation of Bayesian inference, together with an example of application of it in search of rare processes.

The intuitive reasoning of physicists in conditions of uncertainty is closer to the Bayesian approach than to the frequentist ideas taught at University and which are considered the reference framework for handling statistical problems. The combination of intuition and conventional statistics allows practitioners to get results which are very close, both in meaning and in numerical value, to those obtainable by Bayesian methods, at least in simple routine applications. There are, however, cases in which ``arbitrary'' probability inversions produce unacceptable or misleading results and in these cases the conscious application of Bayesian reasoning becomes crucial. Starting from these considerations, I will finally comment on the often debated question: ``is there any chance that all physicists will become Bayesian?''

A theory of measurement uncertainty is presented, which, since it is based exclusively on the Bayesian approach and on the subjective concept of conditional probability, is applicable in the most general cases. The recent International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recommendation on measurement uncertainty is reobtained as the limit case in which linearization is meaningful and one is interested only in the best estimates of the quantities and in their variances.

Bayesian statistics is based on the subjective definition of probability as {\it ``degree of belief''} and on Bayes' theorem, the basic tool for assigning probabilities to hypotheses combining {\it a priori} judgements and experimental information. This was the original point of view of Bayes, Bernoulli, Gauss, Laplace, etc. and contrasts with later ``conventional'' (pseudo-)definitions of probabilities, which implicitly presuppose the concept of probability. These notes show that the Bayesian approach is the natural one for data analysis in the most general sense, and for assigning uncertainties to the results of physical measurements - while at the same time resolving philosophical aspects of the problems. The approach, although little known and usually misunderstood among the High Energy Physics community, has become the standard way of reasoning in several fields of research and has recently been adopted by the international metrology organizations in their recommendations for assessing measurement uncertainty. These notes describe a general model for treating uncertainties originating from random and systematic errors in a consistent way and include examples of applications of the model in High Energy Physics, e.g. ``confidence intervals'' in different contexts, upper/lower limits, treatment of ``systematic errors'', hypothesis tests and unfolding.