3 ms·
This isn't true though. There are ton's of uninterpretable model methodologies in classical statistics that have little to no ability to allow for understanding
by thousandautumns 8y ago
This isn't true though. There are ton's of uninterpretable model methodologies in classical statistics that have little to no ability to allow for understanding but are aimed entirely at accurate predictions. Where is this narrative that statistics is only interested in understanding coming from?
- srean 8y ago> Where is this narrative that statistics is only interested in understanding coming from? You may have heard of this guy called Fisher he might like to have a few words with you. He says he fathered modern Stats, that he connected what was a bag of recipes to math. Many seem to agree [0] despite the fact he does not seem to be the most pleasant bloke around. The British queen seemed awfully impressed with him though, YMMV. [0] "a genius who almost single handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science" -- Hald, Anders, A History of Mathematical Statistics.
- thousandautumns 8y agoI'm sure you were attempting to make a point, but you failed. But if you are trying to claim that R.A. Fisher only cared claims that statistics is only about inference, the point is moot because: 1. R.A. Fisher isn't the Almighty Statistical God just because he did laid a lot of foundations in early statistics. 2. Fisher has a long history of seriously stupid personal-beliefs including but not limited to: refuting anything and everything relating to Bayesian statistics, attempting to discredit the studies done showing a link between smoking and lung cancer, and advocating for eugenics and the idea of superiority/inferiority between races. So just because Fisher may have claimed something doesn't make it so.