5 ms·

This still doesn't feel satisfying. Part of me is still not really happy with the philosophical foundations of statistics. Does anyone know of any legitimately

by tw1010 9y ago

This still doesn't feel satisfying. Part of me is still not really happy with the philosophical foundations of statistics. Does anyone know of any legitimately competing theory to statistics? Maybe something that doesn't rest on the same types of mathematics that Fisher and crew relied on when all this started? Pure mathematics has come a long way in the last fifty years but little has seeped into the applied world.

168 9y ago
How & why exactly are you unhappy with statistics?
ArchReaper 9y ago
lol what the hell are you on about
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
scryder 9y ago
Statistics arises from a set of axioms, assumed truths, which can be used to prove all other things in the field. You can take a look at the three axioms people use to justify statistics. If you are willing to accept them, all else that relies on them (without using new axioms) must be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms This same logic is used to justify development in pure mathematics: choose a set of axioms which you accept as ground truths, and prove things using them. As long as you are unable to prove your axioms are contradictory, and the axiom choice seems acceptable, then the work that you've done (with respect to them) is philosophically justified.
- tw1010 9y ago
  Statistics and probability are different things. I'm fine with the foundations of probability.
  - mturmon 9y ago
    Just for reference, not everyone is OK with the foundations of probability - what you might call "conventional mathematical probability" as axiomatized by Kolmogorov. See http://www2.idsia.ch/cms/isipta-ecsqaru/ http://www2.idsia.ch/cms/isipta-ecsqaru/ for the most recent in a series of workshops. One entry into this set of ideas is what Peter Walley has called the "Bayesian dogma of precision" - that every event has a precise probability, that every outcome has a known cost. There are real-world situations when these probabilities cannot be assessed, or may not even exist; same for utilities. Some examples are in betting and markets (asymmetric information, bounded rationality), and in complex simulation environments having so many parameters and encoded physics that the interpretation of their probabilistic predictions is unclear.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  Please don't treat probability and statistics as one.
drabiega 9y ago
It's likely that the problems with statistics are inherently due to the nature of knowledge, so alternative formulations are not likely to help much.
tnecniv 9y ago
> Part of me is still not really happy with the philosophical foundations of statistics. You mean you aren't happy with...probability?
robterrin 9y ago
Uh oh. If you don't watch out you'll end up a Bayesian. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_... Is this along the lines of what you were hoping to find? Here's more: http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/13/bayesian-statistics-whats/ http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/13/bayesian-statistics-whats...

by tw1010 9y ago

168 9y ago

How & why exactly are you unhappy with statistics?

ArchReaper 9y ago

lol what the hell are you on about

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

scryder 9y ago

Statistics arises from a set of axioms, assumed truths, which can be used to prove all other things in the field. You can take a look at the three axioms people use to justify statistics. If you are willing to accept them, all else that relies on them (without using new axioms) must be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms This same logic is used to justify development in pure mathematics: choose a set of axioms which you accept as ground truths, and prove things using them. As long as you are unable to prove your axioms are contradictory, and the axiom choice seems acceptable, then the work that you've done (with respect to them) is philosophically justified.

tw1010 9y ago
Statistics and probability are different things. I'm fine with the foundations of probability.
- mturmon 9y ago
  Just for reference, not everyone is OK with the foundations of probability - what you might call "conventional mathematical probability" as axiomatized by Kolmogorov. See http://www2.idsia.ch/cms/isipta-ecsqaru/ http://www2.idsia.ch/cms/isipta-ecsqaru/ for the most recent in a series of workshops. One entry into this set of ideas is what Peter Walley has called the "Bayesian dogma of precision" - that every event has a precise probability, that every outcome has a known cost. There are real-world situations when these probabilities cannot be assessed, or may not even exist; same for utilities. Some examples are in betting and markets (asymmetric information, bounded rationality), and in complex simulation environments having so many parameters and encoded physics that the interpretation of their probabilistic predictions is unclear.
BeetleB 9y ago
Please don't treat probability and statistics as one.

drabiega 9y ago

It's likely that the problems with statistics are inherently due to the nature of knowledge, so alternative formulations are not likely to help much.

tnecniv 9y ago

> Part of me is still not really happy with the philosophical foundations of statistics. You mean you aren't happy with...probability?

robterrin 9y ago

Uh oh. If you don't watch out you'll end up a Bayesian. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_... Is this along the lines of what you were hoping to find? Here's more: http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/13/bayesian-statistics-whats/ http://andrewgelman.com/2016/12/13/bayesian-statistics-whats...