3 ms·

It would also be helpful if they'd read the article.

by gbrown 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I read the article and it's almost completely orthogonal to the questions asked by 'graffitici. There's nothing suggesting that they didn't read the article, so now I assert that you have three things to explain - where they're wrong, what's the right answer to their question and why on Earth did you think they didn't read the article?
- gbrown 11y ago
  From the article: "We want to know if results are right, but a p-value doesn’t measure that. It can’t tell you the magnitude of an effect, the strength of the evidence or the probability that the finding was the result of chance." From the first sentence of the parent comment: "From what I understand, p-values are typically used by frequentist method for verifying that the "prediction" seems correct." If my reply seemed glib, it was because I thought the question was so far off base, that graffitici almost certainly hadn't read the article. To relate to the topic under discussion, the distribution of possible comments produced by people who have carefully read the article is extremely unlikely to result in a post as extremely misinformed as the one above. If there was a simple statistical misunderstanding, perhaps that would be worth clearing up. Instead, the parent comment used some statistical words, but was very nearly incoherent. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything if I wasn't willing to write a protracted essay about the differences between frequentist and Bayesian inference.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > To relate to the topic under discussion, the distribution of possible comments produced by people who have carefully read the article is extremely unlikely to result in a post as extremely misinformed as the one above. I disagree. There's an alternative hypothesis that could explain a comment like that - the author harbors some confused views about frequentist and Bayesian approaches to statistics. I'm inclined to believe that this hypothesis is right, because I recognize that comment as something I'd write myself back when I was more confused about this topic. Reading the article is unlikely to affect this particular issue. > Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything if I wasn't willing to write a protracted essay about the differences between frequentist and Bayesian inference. I think even one sentence explaining the gist of the author's confusion would be enough. Plenty of essays have been written on the topic, but one needs to be pointed in their general direction in order to benefit.
    - gbrown 11y ago
      That's a fair point, but I'm not sure I understand the gist of the author's confusion. Any response I would craft would end up being a re-statement of the usual one sentence definition of p-values and Bayesian probability, both of which are already under discussion elsewhere in the comments.

It would also be helpful if they'd read the article.

by gbrown 11y ago

It would also be helpful if they'd read the article.

I read the article and it's almost completely orthogonal to the questions asked by 'graffitici. There's nothing suggesting that they didn't read the article, so now I assert that you have three things to explain - where they're wrong, what's the right answer to their question and why on Earth did you think they didn't read the article?

gbrown 11y ago
From the article: "We want to know if results are right, but a p-value doesn’t measure that. It can’t tell you the magnitude of an effect, the strength of the evidence or the probability that the finding was the result of chance." From the first sentence of the parent comment: "From what I understand, p-values are typically used by frequentist method for verifying that the "prediction" seems correct." If my reply seemed glib, it was because I thought the question was so far off base, that graffitici almost certainly hadn't read the article. To relate to the topic under discussion, the distribution of possible comments produced by people who have carefully read the article is extremely unlikely to result in a post as extremely misinformed as the one above. If there was a simple statistical misunderstanding, perhaps that would be worth clearing up. Instead, the parent comment used some statistical words, but was very nearly incoherent. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything if I wasn't willing to write a protracted essay about the differences between frequentist and Bayesian inference.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > To relate to the topic under discussion, the distribution of possible comments produced by people who have carefully read the article is extremely unlikely to result in a post as extremely misinformed as the one above. I disagree. There's an alternative hypothesis that could explain a comment like that - the author harbors some confused views about frequentist and Bayesian approaches to statistics. I'm inclined to believe that this hypothesis is right, because I recognize that comment as something I'd write myself back when I was more confused about this topic. Reading the article is unlikely to affect this particular issue. > Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything if I wasn't willing to write a protracted essay about the differences between frequentist and Bayesian inference. I think even one sentence explaining the gist of the author's confusion would be enough. Plenty of essays have been written on the topic, but one needs to be pointed in their general direction in order to benefit.
  - gbrown 11y ago
    That's a fair point, but I'm not sure I understand the gist of the author's confusion. Any response I would craft would end up being a re-statement of the usual one sentence definition of p-values and Bayesian probability, both of which are already under discussion elsewhere in the comments.