You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Cyan comments on Thinking like a Scientist - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: FrameBenignly 19 July 2015 02:43PM

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

Comments (25)

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

Comment author: Cyan 26 July 2015 05:38:44PM *  4 points [-]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that... vectors are a necessary precursor for regression analysis...

So you're fitting a straight line. Parameter estimates don't require linear algebra (that is, vectors and matrices). Super. But the immediate next step in any worthwhile analysis of data is calculating a confidence set (or credible set, if you're a Bayesian) for the parameter estimates; good luck teaching that if your students don't know basic linear algebra. In fact, all of regression analysis, from the most basic least squares estimator through multilevel/hierarchical regression models up to the most advanced sparse "p >> n" method, is built on top of linear algebra.

(Why do I have such strong opinions on the subject? I'm a Bayesian statistician by trade; this is how I make my living.)