Posts Tagged ‘ Decision Theory ’

No tradeoff between regularization and discovery

October 18, 2017
By

We had a couple recent discussions regarding questionable claims based on p-values extracted from forking paths, and in both cases (a study “trying large numbers of combinations of otherwise-unused drugs against a large number of untreatable illnesses,” and a salami-slicing exercise looking for public opinion changes in subgroups of the population), I recommended fitting a […] The post No tradeoff between regularization and discovery appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal…

Read more »

Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the 1.65 that would be expected by chance alone, so what’s the problem??”

October 16, 2017
By

From someone who would prefer to remain anonymous: As you may know, the relatively recent “orphan drug” laws allow (basically) companies that can prove an off-patent drug treats an otherwise untreatable illness, to obtain intellectual property protection for otherwise generic or dead drugs. This has led to a new business of trying large numbers of […] The post Freelance orphans: “33 comparisons, 4 are statistically significant: much more than the…

Read more »

Mick Cooney: case study on modeling loss curves in insurance with RStan

October 14, 2017
By

This is great. Thanks, Mick! All the Stan case studies are here. The post Mick Cooney: case study on modeling loss curves in insurance with RStan appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Read more »

When do we want evidence-based change? Not “after peer review”

October 13, 2017
By
When do we want evidence-based change?  Not “after peer review”

Jonathan Falk sent me the above image in an email with subject line, “If this isn’t the picture for some future blog entry I’ll never forgive you.” This was a credible threat so here’s the post. But I don’t agree with that placard at all! Waiting for peer review is a bad idea for two […] The post When do we want evidence-based change? Not “after peer review” appeared first…

Read more »

Workshop on Interpretable Machine Learning

October 11, 2017
By

Andrew Gordon Wilson sends along this conference announcement: NIPS 2017 Symposium Interpretable Machine Learning Long Beach, California, USA December 7, 2017 Call for Papers: We invite researchers to submit their recent work on interpretable machine learning from a wide range of approaches, including (1) methods that are designed to be more interpretable from the start, […] The post Workshop on Interpretable Machine Learning appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference,…

Read more »

I respond to E. J.’s response to our response to his comment on our paper responding to his paper

October 7, 2017
By

In response to my response and X’s response to his comment on our paper responding to his paper, E. J. writes: Empirical claims often concern the presence of a phenomenon. In such situations, any reasonable skeptic will remain unconvinced when the data fail to discredit the point-null. . . . When your goal is to […] The post I respond to E. J.’s response to our response to his comment…

Read more »

I disagree with Tyler Cowen regarding a so-called lack of Bayesianism in religious belief

October 6, 2017
By

Tyler Cowen writes: I am frustrated by the lack of Bayesianism in most of the religious belief I observe. I’ve never met a believer who asserted: “I’m really not sure here. But I think Lutheranism is true with p = .018, and the next strongest contender comes in only at .014, so call me Lutheran.” […] The post I disagree with Tyler Cowen regarding a so-called lack of Bayesianism in…

Read more »

I’m not on twitter

October 5, 2017
By

This blog auto-posts. But I’m not on twitter. You can tweet at me all you want; I won’t hear it (unless someone happens to tell me about it). So if there’s anything buggin ya, put it in a blog comment. The post I’m not on twit...

Read more »

Should we worry about rigged priors? A long discussion.

October 4, 2017
By

Today’s discussion starts with Stuart Buck, who came across a post by John Cook linking to my post, “Bayesian statistics: What’s it all about?”. Cook wrote about the benefit of prior distributions in making assumptions explicit. Buck shared Cook’s post with Jon Baron, who wrote: My concern is that if researchers are systematically too optimistic […] The post Should we worry about rigged priors? A long discussion. appeared first on…

Read more »

BREAKING . . . . . . . PNAS updates its slogan!

October 4, 2017
By
BREAKING . . . . . . . PNAS updates its slogan!

I’m so happy about this, no joke. Here’s the story. For awhile I’ve been getting annoyed by the junk science papers (for example, here, here, and here) that have been published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences under the editorship of Susan T. Fiske. I’ve taken to calling it PPNAS (“Prestigious proceedings […] The post BREAKING . . . . . . . PNAS updates its slogan!…

Read more »


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe