Re: The danger of classical hypothesis and significance tests [was Re: MADLY AMUSED]
- From: illywhacker <illywacker@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
On May 28, 8:52 pm, "S. F. Thomas" <thomas7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
illywhacker wrote:
I should add that in any case this conversation is moot. Confidence
intervals and classical hypothesis and significance tests are an ad
hoc waste of time, and are even dangerous, because they can appear to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> work even ?when they have in fact broken down completely.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pardon me for jumping in. Would you care to give an example of this
claim? I'm by no means a defender of the classical paradigm, but I'm not
aware of the positive danger you claim. Please elaborate.
By all means. I suggest you read:
Jaynes, E. T., 1976. `Confidence Intervals vs Bayesian Intervals,' in
Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and
Statistical Theories of Science, W. L. Harper and C. A. Hooker
(eds.),
D. Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 175.
You can find the pdf here (but beware, it is an 8MB file):
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/confidence.pdf.
illywhacker;
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- MADLY AMUSED
- From: Luis A. Afonso
- Re: MADLY AMUSED
- From: illywhacker
- The danger of classical hypothesis and significance tests [was Re: MADLY AMUSED]
- From: S. F. Thomas
- MADLY AMUSED
- Prev by Date: Re: Probability of making a choice by a person, on the basis of earlier made choices?
- Next by Date: Re: MLE
- Previous by thread: The danger of classical hypothesis and significance tests [was Re: MADLY AMUSED]
- Next by thread: Re: The danger of classical hypothesis and significance tests [was Re: MADLY AMUSED]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
