Some myths concerning statistical hypothesis testing
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Nov 18 08:49:15 EST 2002
Clear discussion, Robert.
Beautiful, in fact.
ken
Robert Dodier wrote in message
<6714766d.0211171827.612e3ad6 at posting.google.com>...
>"John H." <johnh at faraway.xxx> wrote:
>
>> As a mathematical outsider I find it quite surprising that some of
the
>> fundamentals of statistical analysis, utilised so widely in the
sciences,
>> remains in hot dispute by many people who obviously are not
intellectual
>> outsiders. It just shows how even in such a 'pure' field as
mathematics
>> there remains plenty of room for debate.
>
>Just to clarify the grounds of the debate, the questions of interest
>are not mathematical in nature -- so far as I know all parties agree
>on the theorems of probability, measure theory, etc. and nobody
claims
>that their opponents have a false derivation or some error like
that.
>
>The debate is best characterized as a scientific in nature --
>specifically, there is disagreement as to what the A, B, C, and
>X, Y, Z in the equations can stand for. It is something like a
>physicist exhibiting an equation for balance of phlogiston --
>even if the equation itself is OK, some people will object to
>interpreting the quantity P as a massless fluid that transfers
energy.
>
>Specifically, in the case of statistics, one group claims that it is
>meaningful to assess probability for any proposition, be it
concerning
>random variables or otherwise. Another influential group claims that
>is incorrect, and some mode of reasoning other than probability is
>required for any proposition not concerning random variables. This
>disagreement as to the scope of probability has lead to vastly
>different methodologies, and never the twain shall meet, AFAICT.
>
>Statistics courses for non-majors are almost entirely taught by
>the "probability for random variables only" party; this is a
>historical and sociological phenomenon. OTOH, I am aware that the
>other persuasion is popular in many computer science departments,
>specifically as it makes automated reasoning much easier to
formulate.
>
>For what it's worth,
>Robert Dodier
>--
>``He wins most who toys with the dies.'' -- David O'Bedlam
More information about the Neur-sci
mailing list