= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
You claim that medical researchers are doing logical inference incorrectly. But they are in fact doing statistical inference and arguing inductively.
Jaynes argued that probability theory was an extension of logic, so this seems like quite a quibbling point.
Statistical inference and inductive arguments belong in a Bayesian framework. You are making a straw man by translating them into a deductive framework.
They do, but did the paper he dealt with write within a Bayesian framework? I didn't read it, but it sounded like standard "let's test a null hypothesis" fare.
No. Mattes and Gittelman's finding is stronger than your rephrasing—your rephrasing omits evidence useful for Bayesian reasoners.
Which is not a valid objection to Phil's analysis if Mattes and Gittelman weren't doing a Bayesian analysis in the first place. Were they? I'll apologize for not checking myself if I'm wrong, but right now my priors are extremely low so I don't see value in expending the effort to verify.
Their paper should be seen in a Bayesian framework
If they did their calculations in a Bayesian framework. Did they?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I ignore evidence when the evidence doesn't relate to the point of contention.
Phil criticized a bit of paper, noting that the statistical analysis involved did not justify the conclusion made. The conclusion did not follow the analysis. Phil was correct in that criticism.
It's just not an argument against Phil that someone might take some of the data in the paper and do a Bayesian analysis that the authors did not do.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that what the authors did do IS evidence against the hypothesis in question. Evidence against a homogenous response is evidence against any response (it makes some response less likely)