Re: resampling methods are serious procedure?

On Feb 3, 8:14 pm, Gary <LanceG...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 3, 9:00 pm, illywhacker <illywac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why would you take exception? I am sure you are an excellent teacher.
However, you are teaching an approach to statistics, however
implicitly, and whether you use the words or not, that is wrong. Take,
for example, confidence intervals. People can never explain them
because they are nonsensical: theoretically wrong and practically
incorrect, even incoherent.

illywhacker;

Sometimes history can offer a useful perspective. Think how George
Berkeley showed Isaac Newton's calculus to be incohrenent, even though
it was very widely used. Of course it was incohrerent - what was
needed was a great deal of mathematical theory and rigour. But the
folk using Newton's calculus were not wrong despite it's incoherence.

I am sorry but that is not a relevant example, for many reasons, but
most notably because the provably correct and coherent procedures are
readily available now to anyone who cares to make the effort to read
about it.

illywhacker;
.