Given all the recent attention given to kvetching about significance tests, it’s an apt time to reblog Aris Spanos’ overview of the error statistician talking back to the critics [1]. A related paper for your Saturday night reading is Mayo and Spanos (2011).[2] It mixes the error statistical philosophy of science with its philosophy of statistics, introduces severity, […]
Evolutionary ecologist, Stephen Heard (Scientist Sees Squirrel) linked to my blog yesterday. Heard’s post asks: “Why do we make statistics so hard for our students?” I recently blogged Barnard who declared “We need more complexity” in statistical education. I agree with both: after all, Barnard also called for stressing the overarching reasoning for given methods, and that’s in sync with […]
Today is Allan Birnbaum’s Birthday. Birnbaum’s (1962) classic “On the Foundations of Statistical Inference,” in Breakthroughs in Statistics (volume I 1993), concerns a principle that remains at the heart of today’s controversies in statistics–even if it isn’t obvious at first: the Likelihood Principle (LP) (also called the strong likelihood Principle SLP, to distinguish it from the […]
Abbreviated Table of Contents: Here are some items for your Saturday-Sunday reading. Link to complete discussion: Mayo, Deborah G. On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle (with discussion & rejoinder). Statistical Science 29 (2014), no. 2, 227-266. Links to individual papers: Mayo, Deborah G. On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle. Statistical […]
Despite the fact that Fisherians and Neyman-Pearsonians alike regard observed significance levels, or P values, as error probabilities, we occasionally hear allegations (typically from those who are neither Fisherian nor N-P theorists) that P values are actually not error probabilities. The denials tend to go hand in hand with allegations that P values exaggerate evidence against […]
Roger L. Berger School Director & Professor School of Mathematical & Natural Science Arizona State University Comment on S. Senn’s post: “Blood Simple? The complicated and controversial world of bioequivalence”(*) First, I do agree with Senn’s statement that “the FDA requires conventional placebo-controlled trials of a new treatment to be tested at the 5% level two-sided but […]
Here are the slides from my presentation (May 17) at the Scientism workshop in NYC. (They’re sketchy since we were trying for 25-30 minutes.) Below them are some mini notes on some of the talks. Now for my informal notes. Here’s a link to the Speaker abstracts;the presentations may now be found at the conference site here. Comments, questions, and corrections […]
Aris Spanos’ overview of error statistical responses to familiar criticisms of statistical tests. Related reading is Mayo and Spanos (2011) Filed under: Error Statistics, frequentist/Bayesian, Phil6334, reforming the reformers, statistical test...
I had invited Larry to give an update, and I’m delighted that he has! The discussion relates to the last post (by Spanos), which follows upon my deconstruction of Wasserman*. So, for your Saturday night reading pleasure, join me** in reviewing this and the past two blogs and the links within. “Wasserman on Wasserman: Update! […]
Today is Lucien Le Cam’s birthday. He was an error statistician whose remarks in an article, “A Note on Metastatisics,” in a collection on foundations of statistics (Le Cam 1977)* had some influence on me. A statistician at Berkeley, Le Cam was a co-editor with Neyman of the Berkeley Symposia volumes. I hadn’t mentioned him on […]
