Blog Archives

What do these share in common: m&ms, limbo stick, ovulation, Dale Carnegie? Sat night potpourri

January 25, 2015
By
What do these share in common: m&ms, limbo stick, ovulation, Dale Carnegie? Sat night potpourri

Here’s the follow-up to my last (reblogged) post. initially here. My take hasn’t changed much from 2013. Should we be labeling some pursuits “for entertainment only”? Why not? (See also a later post on the replication crisis in psych.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I had said I would label as pseudoscience or questionable science any enterprise that regularly permits the kind of […]

Read more »

Some statistical dirty laundry

January 22, 2015
By
Some statistical dirty laundry

It’s an apt time to reblog the “statistical dirty laundry” post from 2013 here. I hope we can take up the recommendations from Simmons, Nelson and Simonsohn at the end (Note [5]), which we didn’t last time around. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I finally had a chance to fully read the 2012 Tilberg Report* on “Flawed Science” last night. Here are […]

Read more »

Power Analysis and Non-Replicability: If bad statistics is prevalent in your field, does it follow you can’t be guilty of scientific fraud?

January 19, 2015
By
Power Analysis and Non-Replicability: If bad statistics is prevalent in your field, does it follow you can’t be guilty of scientific fraud?

If questionable research practices (QRPs) are prevalent in your field, then apparently you can’t be guilty of scientific misconduct or fraud (by mere QRP finagling), or so some suggest. Isn’t that an incentive for making QRPs the norm?  The following is a recent blog discussion (by  Ulrich Schimmack) on the Jens Förster scandal: I thank Richard Gill for […]

Read more »

“Only those samples which fit the model best in cross validation were included” (whistleblower) “I suspect that we likely disagree with what constitutes validation” (Potti and Nevins)

January 12, 2015
By
“Only those samples which fit the model best in cross validation were included” (whistleblower) “I suspect that we likely disagree with what constitutes validation” (Potti and Nevins)

So it turns out there was an internal whistleblower in the Potti scandal at Duke after all (despite denials by the Duke researchers involved ). It was a medical student Brad Perez. It’s in the Jan. 9, 2015 Cancer Letter*. Ever since my first post on Potti last May (part 1), I’ve received various e-mails and phone calls from people wishing to confide their inside […]

Read more »

On the Brittleness of Bayesian Inference–An Update: Owhadi and Scovel (guest post)

January 8, 2015
By
On the Brittleness of Bayesian Inference–An Update: Owhadi and Scovel (guest post)

Houman Owhadi Professor of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Control and Dynamical Systems, Computing + Mathematical Sciences California Institute of Technology, USA   Clint Scovel Senior Scientist, Computing + Mathematical Sciences California Institute of Technology, USA    “On the Brittleness of Bayesian Inference: An Update” Dear Readers, This is an update on the results discussed […]

Read more »

“When Bayesian Inference Shatters” Owhadi, Scovel, and Sullivan (reblog)

January 7, 2015
By
“When Bayesian Inference Shatters” Owhadi, Scovel, and Sullivan (reblog)

I’m about to post an update of this, most viewed, blogpost, so I reblog it here as a refresher. If interested, you might check the original discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I am grateful to Drs. Owhadi, Scovel and Sullivan for replying to my request for “a plain Jane” explication of their interesting paper, “When Bayesian Inference Shatters”, and […]

Read more »

Significance Levels are Made a Whipping Boy on Climate Change Evidence: Is .05 Too Strict? (Schachtman on Oreskes)

January 4, 2015
By
Significance Levels are Made a Whipping Boy on Climate Change Evidence: Is .05 Too Strict? (Schachtman on Oreskes)

Given the daily thrashing significance tests receive because of how preposterously easy it is claimed to satisfy the .05 significance level requirement, it’s surprising[i] to hear Naomi Oreskes blaming the .05 standard as demanding too high a burden of proof for accepting climate change. “Playing Dumb on Climate Change,” N.Y. Times Sunday Rev. at 2 (Jan. 4, 2015). Is there anything […]

Read more »

No headache power (for Deirdre)

January 3, 2015
By
No headache power (for Deirdre)

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment leads me to try to give a “no headache” treatment of some key points about the power of a statistical test. (Trigger warning: formal stat people may dislike the informality of my exercise.) We all know that for a given test, as the probability of a type 1 error goes down the probability of a type 2 […]

Read more »

Blog Contents: Oct.- Dec. 2014

January 2, 2015
By
Blog Contents: Oct.- Dec. 2014

BLOG CONTENTS: OCT – DEC 2014* OCTOBER 2014 10/01 Oy Faye! What are the odds of not conflating simple conditional probability and likelihood with Bayesian success stories? 10/05 Diederik Stapel hired to teach “social philosophy” because students got tired of success stories… or something (rejected post) 10/07 A (Jan 14, 2014) interview with Sir David Cox by “Statistics […]

Read more »

Midnight With Birnbaum (Happy New Year)

December 31, 2014
By
Midnight With Birnbaum (Happy New Year)

 Just as in the past 3 years since I’ve been blogging, I revisit that spot in the road at 11p.m.*,just outside the Elbar Room, get into a strange-looking taxi, and head to “Midnight With Birnbaum”. I wonder if they’ll come for me this year, given that my Birnbaum article is out… This is what the place […]

Read more »


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe