For three of the last four years, it was not feasible to actually revisit that spot in the road, looking to get into a strange-looking taxi, to head to “Midnight With Birnbaum”. Even last year was iffy. But this year I will, and I’m about to leave at 9pm. (The pic on the left is the only blurry image I have of the club I’m taken to.) My book Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars (CUP, 2018) doesn’t include the argument from my article in Statistical Science (“On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle”), but you can read it at that link along with commentaries by A. P. David, Michael Evans, Martin and Liu, D. A. S. Fraser, Jan Hannig, and Jan Bjornstad. David Cox, who very sadly did in January 2022, is the one who encouraged me to write and publish it. (The first David R. Cox Foundations of Statistics Prize will be awarded at the JSM 2023.) Not only does the (Strong) Likelihood Principle (LP or SLP) remain at the heart of many of the criticisms of Neyman-Pearson (N-P) statistics and of error statistics in general, but a decade after my 2014 paper, it is more central than ever–even if it is often unrecognized. Continue reading
Monthly Archives: December 2023
A weekend to binge read the (Strong) Likelihood Principle
If you read my 2023 paper on Cox’s philosophy of statistics, you’ll have come across Cox’s famous “weighing machine” example, which is thought to have caused “a subtle earthquake” in foundations of statistics. If you’re curious as to why that is, you’ll be interested to know that each year, on New Year’s Eve, I return to the conundrum. This post gives some background, and collects the essential links. Continue reading
Princeton talk: Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: Beyond Performance and Probabilism
On November 14, I gave a talk at the Seminar in Advanced Research Methods for the Department of Psychology, Princeton University.
“Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: Beyond Probabilism and Performance”
The video of my talk is below along with the slides. It reminds me to return to a paper, half-written, replying to a paper on “A Bayesian Perspective on Severity” (van Dongen, Sprenger, Wagenmakers (2022). These authors claim that Bayesians can satisfy severity “regardless of whether the test has been conducted in a severe or less severe fashion”, but what they mean is that data can be much more probable on hypothesis H1 than on H0 –the Bayes factor can be high. However, “severity” can be satisfied in their comparative (subjective) Bayesian sense even for claims that are poorly probed in the error statistical sense (slides 55-6). Share your comments. Continue reading
1 Year Ago Today: “The Statistics Wars and Their Casualties” workshop
It’s been 1 year (December 8, 2022) since our workshop, The Statistics Wars and Their Casualties! There were four sessions, held over 4 days. Below are the videos and slides from all four sessions of the Workshop. The first two sessions were held on September 22 & 23, 2022. Session 1 speakers were: Deborah Mayo (Virginia Tech), Richard Morey (Cardiff University), Stephen Senn (Edinburgh, Scotland). Session 2 speakers were: Daniël Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology), Christian Hennig (University of Bologna), Yoav Benjamini (Tel Aviv University). The last two sessions were held on December 1 and 8. Session 3 speakers were: Daniele Fanelli (London School of Economics and Political Science), Stephan Guttinger (University of Exeter), and David Hand (Imperial College London). Session 4 speakers were: Jon Williamson (University of Kent), Margherita Harris (London School of Economics and Political Science), Aris Spanos (Virginia Tech), and Uri Simonsohn (Esade Ramon Llull University).
Abstracts can be found here and the schedule here. Some participant related publications are on this page. Continue reading




