5 ms·
Robust statistical analyses require knowledge, judgement, and increasingly, specialist expertise. To market a product as a way to jettison the statistician is s
by haZard_OS 9y ago
Robust statistical analyses require knowledge, judgement, and increasingly, specialist expertise. To market a product as a way to jettison the statistician is so shortsighted as to be intellectual malpractice.
Forgive me if I seem overly aggressive but I have grown weary of my and my colleagues' profession being side-lined and belittled. Politicians, administrators, and even some other scientists see statistics as merely a badge to be placed atop their own work for validation. Well, ladies and gentlemen, statistics is more than that. It is an empirical science in its own right.
Of course, it doesn't always take a statistician to do the necessary statistical work. I am no physicist yet I can certainly apply the Clausius Clapeyron equation as needed. Likewise, I expect many (perhaps most) scientists to be able to apply an ANOVA or simple regression as the need arises.
HOWEVER, the lack of intellectual humility on the part of so many non-statisticians when applying statistical tools to their own work is maddening.
- mbell 9y agoI'm having a hard time understanding how statistics could be considered an empirical science, and really what bearing that term has on statistics at all. Can you explain?
- closed 9y agoNot OP, but I would say that when statistics acts like a subfield of mathematics, then it is an art. However, if we consider judging whether a statistical method will be useful for the world as a part of statistics, then that part sometimes is an empirical science. That is, the statement "I should use X technique because it performs Y% well" is sometimes an an empirical statement.
- cozzyd 9y agoOne simple example is that the power of a statistical test is usually modeled using mock experiments.