2 ms·
> I did not mean to imply that each value in the interval is equally likely (and looking over my comments, I do not think I did imply that). When you said that
by kgwgk 8y ago
> I did not mean to imply that each value in the interval is equally likely (and looking over my comments, I do not think I did imply that).
When you said that "the values at the boundary of your interval are as credible as in the center" you kind of implied that, which is why I asked.
I won't defend the article being discussed, but you opposed their statement that "the values in the center are more compatible than the values at the boundary" with an equally ill-defined "the values at the boundary are as credible as in the center".
- BeetleB 8y agoI do not read my statement to imply uniform distribution. What I meant was "there is no reason to prefer values at the center more than values at the boundary" based on the CI (there may be external reasons, though). To me, this is equivalent to your: >there is nothing that can be said about the likelihood of each value
- kgwgk 8y agoOk, we agree. "As credible as" implies uniform "credibility". "More compatible than" implies non-uniform "compatibility". Without any clear definition of "credibility" or "compatibility" it's impossible to interpret precisely what are those claims supossed to mean.