Neyman & Pearson
November Cruise: 3.2
This third of November’s stops in the leisurely cruise of SIST aligns well with my recent BJPS paper Severe Testing: Error Statistics vs Bayes Factor Tests. In tomorrow’s zoom, 11 am New York time, we’ll have an overview of the topics in SIST so far, as well as a discussion of this paper. (If you don’t have a link, and want one, write to me at error@vt.edu).
3.2 N-P Tests: An Episode in Anglo-Polish Collaboration*
We proceed by setting up a specific hypothesis to test, H0 in Neyman’s and my terminology, the null hypothesis in R. A. Fisher’s . . . in choosing the test, we take into account alternatives to H0 which we believe possible or at any rate consider it most important to be on the look out for . . .Three steps in constructing the test may be defined: Continue reading
A seminal controversy in statistical inference is whether error probabilities associated with an inference method are evidentially relevant once the data are in hand. Frequentist error statisticians say yes; Bayesians say no. A “no” answer goes hand in hand with holding the Likelihood Principle (LP), which follows from inference by Bayes theorem. A “yes” answer violates the LP (also called the strong LP). The reason error probabilities drop out according to the LP is that it follows from the LP that all the evidence from the data is contained in the likelihood ratios (at least for inference within a statistical model). For the error statistician, likelihood ratios are merely measures of comparative fit, and omit crucial information about their reliability. A dramatic illustration of this disagreement involves optional stopping, and it’s the one to which Roderick Little turns in the chapter “Do you like the likelihood principle?” in 
Around a year ago, Professor Rod Little asked me if I’d mind being on the cover of a book he was finishing along with Fisher, Neyman and some others (can you identify the others?). Mind? The book is 
Error Statistics Philosophy 