2 ms·
>it's possible to use rigorously sound statistics to lie (or at least unknowingly spread falsehoods). I don't think this is true. It is possible to put a lot o
by whatshisface 5y ago
>it's possible to use rigorously sound statistics to lie (or at least unknowingly spread falsehoods).
I don't think this is true. It is possible to put a lot of work into unsound statistics and to make a lot of "noise and fury" about how mathematical you are while failing some basic principle, but I don't think sound statistics can mislead. The replication crisis was caused by scientists not being rigorous and journals not forcing them to be. You absolutely cannot accept publication as a sign of sound techniques except in journal/field combinations that have a deserved reputation.
- kortilla 5y ago> but I don't think sound statistics can mislead. Of course they can, unless you magically exclude all statistics that made a bad assumption on independence. I plot all the daily high temperatures and the presence of the ice cream cart and it turns out the ice cream cart causes warmer highs! Solid statistics. Turns out the guy that has the ice cream cart has a weather app on his phone though and doesn’t come out on forecasted cold days.
- mike_hearn 5y agoIs that the fault of statistics though, or the non-statistical implication of causation that was tacked on the end of the statistical detection of correlation? Statistics is pretty explicit that it can't tell you about causality, right?
- omginternets 5y agoYes, the whole point is that you can use sound statistics in bad faith.
- whatshisface 5y agoThat's not sound statistics. How can you call something sound and then point out a clear problem with it?
- kortilla 5y agoThere’s nothing wrong with the statistics. That’s the point.