3 years ago...

3 years ago…

MONTHLY MEMORY LANE: 3 years ago: January 2014. I mark in red three posts from each month that seem most apt for general background on key issues in this blog, excluding those reblogged recently[1], and in green up to 3 others I’d recommend[2].  Posts that are part of a “unit” or a group count as one. This month, I’m grouping the 3 posts from my seminar with A. Spanos, counting them as 1.

January 2014

  • (1/2) Winner of the December 2013 Palindrome Book Contest (Rejected Post)
  • (1/3) Error Statistics Philosophy: 2013
  • (1/4) Your 2014 wishing well. …
  • (1/7) “Philosophy of Statistical Inference and Modeling” New Course: Spring 2014: Mayo and Spanos: (Virginia Tech)
  • (1/11) Two Severities? (PhilSci and PhilStat)
  • (1/14) Statistical Science meets Philosophy of Science: blog beginnings
  • (1/16) Objective/subjective, dirty hands and all that: Gelman/Wasserman blogolog (ii)
  • (1/18) Sir Harold Jeffreys’ (tail area) one-liner: Sat night comedy [draft ii]
  • (1/22) Phil6334: “Philosophy of Statistical Inference and Modeling” New Course: Spring 2014: Mayo and Spanos (Virginia Tech) UPDATE: JAN 21
  • (1/24) Phil 6334: Slides from Day #1: Four Waves in Philosophy of Statistics
  • (1/25) U-Phil (Phil 6334) How should “prior information” enter in statistical inference?
  • (1/27) Winner of the January 2014 palindrome contest (rejected post)
  • (1/29) BOSTON COLLOQUIUM FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: Revisiting the Foundations of Statistics


  • (1/31) Phil 6334: Day #2 Slides


[1] Monthly memory lanes began at the blog’s 3-year anniversary in Sept, 2014.

[2] New Rule, July 30, 2016-very convenient.







Categories: 3-year memory lane, Bayesian/frequentist, Statistics | 1 Comment

Post navigation

One thought on “3 YEARS AGO (JANUARY 2014): MEMORY LANE

  1. Jeffreys on p-values.

    Suppose the hypothesis is that the data follow the $N(0,1)$
    distribution. What observable results does this hypothesis predict? It
    seem pointless to predict a single value as such a prediction would be
    wrong with probability 1. The prediction must be a set ${\mathcal S}$
    of values with the prediction being regarded as correct if the
    observable result $x$ lies in ${\mathcal S}$. Putting ${\mathcal
    S}=\rz$ results in the prediction being correct with probability one
    but this is somewhat vacuous. A non-vacuous prediction can be obtained
    by specifying a probability $\alpha$ and a set ${\mathcal S}(\alpha)$
    such that the prediction is correct with probability $\alpha$, $\pr(X\in
    {\mathcal S}(\alpha))=\alpha$. It is worthy of note that the larger
    $\alpha$ the more vacuous the prediction so to speak. As a simple example put
    $\alpha=0.95$ and ${\mathcal S}(\alpha)=(-1.96,1.96)$ and suppose that
    $x=3.121$ is observed. The $p$-value is $\pr(\vert X \vert > 3.121)=
    0.0018$ and for this to be a successful prediction would require
    $\alpha=0.9982$ rather than the chosen $\alpha=0.95$. We now interpret
    `not predicted to occur’ in the sense `predicted not to
    occur’ rather than in the sense `forgetting to predict’. If it were
    agreed beforehand that a false prediction would lead to the null
    hypothesis to be rejected, then this is done because a value predicted
    not to occur, namely 3.121, did in fact occur. This seems an
    unremarkable procedure. How bad the prediction error is can be
    measured by the $\alpha=0.9982$ required to make the prediction
    correct and which corresponds to a very weak prediction in that it
    would be correct in 99.8\% of the times.

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.