4 ms·
I'm rather surprised how exceptionally naive articles are upvoted on HN when the subject matter is specialized. If you're going to talk about retiring standard
by forgotpwtomain 10y ago
I'm rather surprised how exceptionally naive articles are upvoted on HN when the subject matter is specialized. If you're going to talk about retiring standard deviation you should have some pretty detailed mathematical arguments, this is a waste of time.
- LionessLover 10y agoYou didn't read it? Or you overlooked the part where he said WHO should "retire" it - and who should keep it! This is about how people interpret statistical results. Which is not a mathematical process - it is what comes after the math.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> This is about how people interpret statistical results. Which is not a mathematical process - it is what comes after the math. If the later is not a process with a scientific method which can be detailed and substantiated, than this is mysticism and my interest stops there. That being said you really don't need to do math to practice mysticism, but I'm sure having numbers and equations help with the hand-waving when selling it to non-technical people.
- jamez1 10y agoWhat are you an economist? Why do you need detailed mathematical arguments for something that can be explained quite simply? Anybody who cares to listen to the field will see these issues time and time again. Statistics like any other discipline has biases, misconceptions and traditions. Just look at how poorly it's used by academia. Do you really think that we follow the best practices/procedures we can be? Or do you think for the most part practitioners and academics are doing what they were taught?