Comment author:Liron
04 December 2009 10:15:29PM
0 points
[-]
Regarding frequentists' concerns about subjectivity in the Bayesian interpretation:
We should learn to be content with happiness instead of "true happiness", truth instead of "ultimate truth", purpose instead of "transcendental purpose", and morality instead of "objective morality". [1]
...and randomness instead of "true randomness". Mind the mind.
Comment author:freddy
04 December 2009 11:08:36PM
12 points
[-]
"In modern times there is absolutely no excuse for not publishing the raw data, but that's another story."
Nope. If, like many studies, you have data on real live humans there are perfectly-sane ethical and legal considerations which make publishing raw data a non-starter. Even publishing summaries is a problem; see the way the Wellcome Trust Case Control Studies recently hauled aggregate results of their website when it became clear individual diseases status could be ascertained from them.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Regarding frequentists' concerns about subjectivity in the Bayesian interpretation:
...and randomness instead of "true randomness". Mind the mind.
"In modern times there is absolutely no excuse for not publishing the raw data, but that's another story."
Nope. If, like many studies, you have data on real live humans there are perfectly-sane ethical and legal considerations which make publishing raw data a non-starter. Even publishing summaries is a problem; see the way the Wellcome Trust Case Control Studies recently hauled aggregate results of their website when it became clear individual diseases status could be ascertained from them.