Kevin comments on Case study: abuse of frequentist statistics - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Cyan 21 February 2010 06:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (96)
Tags: frequentism bayesian statistics madness

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 25 February 2010 02:09:39PM *  -1 points [-]

Check out the title: abuse of frequentist statistics. Yes, at the end, I argue from a Bayesian perspective, but you don't have to be a Bayesian to see the structural problems with frequentist statistics as currently taught to and practiced by working scientists.

Well, I don't see the structural problems. (I don't even know what a structural problem is.)

Somebody, please write a top-level post addressing this. Stop saying "Frequentists are bad" and leaving it at that. This is a great story; but it's not valid argumentation to try to convert it into an anti-frequentist tract.

Comment author: Kevin 25 February 2010 02:18:42PM *  1 point [-]

I'd love to see a top-level post where someone suggests the best and/or most realistic way for scientists to do their statistics. I'm actually rather ignorant with regards to probability theory. I got a D in second semester frequentist statistics (hard teacher + I didn't go to class or try very hard on the homework) which is indicative of how little I learned in that class. I did better in my applied statistics classes.

When is it good for scientists to do null hypothesis testing?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit