He's a damn frequentist! (the big issue is that he's not a philosopher, not that there's anything wrong with it....)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Nick Spencer of the Telegraph says Americans don't do atheism. It's a weird piece that frets over the religiosity of American politicians, but somehow seems to find it reassuring that there are different ways to be religious, and that maybe the US is moving away from dominionist wackaloonery…
My latest book project has been coediting the proceedings of the 2013 MOVES Conference held in New York City, which has turned out to be a lot harder than I anticipated. For the last few weeks it's been all-consuming, and spending so many hours in front of the computer staring at other people's…
There's a mini media blitz underway promoting Denis Dutton's new book The Art Instinct. He was on the Colbert Report last week, he's reviewed in the Times, and he's featured in this week's Bloggingheads Science Saturday:
While it's kind of entertaining to listen to John Horgan struggling to get a…
Newsweek has a story in its next edition about the various battles over evolution and ID going on around the country. The DI is sure to go ballistic over it soon, since it actually tells the truth about ID. But there's one passage in it that just leaps off the page. It's this one:
But I.D. has…
I was happy to know nothing about the issue:)
They bayesians and frequentists are bashing each other? Still?
Well, ÐС-С seems to be incorrect in his interpretation of the misuse.
bayesian approach seems to be pretty close to our mind:)
It's not one of those misleading and hard to handle approaches.
If we didn't understand the 'information' concept - there would be no bayesian thinking. It is nearly innate.
Does ability to count provocate mistakes like '2+3=6'?
So, i believe, it rather makes some of the mistakes we make clear and M C-C may thank mr. Bayes for this. (instead of blaming)
Unfortunately, statistics in general IS one of those misleading instruments.:(((( Alas. Where i find the calculus or the set theories bright, beautiful and clear things - i feel myself like pressing the round head into square hat while trying to understand statistics.
BTW, underlying philosophy - is the thing we have to understand rather than clash over and fight for:)
I disagree with the idea of looking for the weak sides of everithing. There are the things just to understand:) What are the weakntsses of the crow?
So yes, damned frequentist!
PS. Statistics usually is OK in population genetics, of course.
I mean the obvious thing - its ability to mislead depends on objects it's applied to and the questions you ask.