3 ms·

As a mathematician, that article was a little embarrassing to wade through. While there are valid criticisms of the way statistics are sometimes misused in sci

As a mathematician, that article was a little embarrassing to wade through. While there are valid criticisms of the way statistics are sometimes misused in science, pretty much every one of them comes from lack of understanding about how statistical models work - scientists reaching for a familiar test and following a formula they were taught. I can't blame them too much - understanding the true purpose and nature of statistical models is HARD (my recommended step one: become a Bayesian). What we need is for more people to recognise when they don't have that understanding and work with somebody who does. What Briggs seems to have done, though, is decided that because HE doesn't understand statistical inference and modelling, that statistics are bunk. Taking a simplistic definition of "trend" like "the second-half average is higher than the first" and turning that into a boolean yes/no answer is the statistical equivalent of being an anti-vaccer. The most frustrating thing, though, is that all the alternative definitions of "trend" he defines can actually be expressed as statistical models! The issue is that when you express these definitions/tests for "trend" as models, you see that the statements each model makes about the underlying system are very problematic. TL;DR - Briggs doesn't understand statistical modelling, and has therefore concluded that his home-rolled tests are just as good.

nkurz 12y ago
(responding both to you and 'duckingtest') No, the 'answer' is not that the person you disagree with "believes in magic" or "doesn't understand" the field they work in as respected experts. Appell goes on to try to explain why climate modelling is concerned with 'projection' rather than 'prediction', and has a very clear view of the difference between science and magic. Briggs has been a professor of statistics at Cornell, written several book on statistics, and published dozens of peer reviewed papers. Claiming that he is the "statistical equivalent of an anti-vaccer" might be a useful rhetorical strategy but unless you can point to some prominent mainstream career vaccine researchers that you'd also lump into this category, it has no basis in truth. Playing to a home crowd is easy, but has left us where we are with two locked down groups each trying to persuade the undecided middle that their opponent is the devil incarnate. This doesn't lead anywhere desirable, just to further entrenchment of positions. The "way out" is trying to formulate criticism that can be understood by the party being criticized and influences them and their followers to reevaluate their beliefs and approaches. I think it has to be something stylistic that we as readers associate with a world-view (a dog whistle) rather than the actual content of the statements. Take the paragraph in "Lesson 1": If you say the mixed marriage of splicing the disjoint series does not matter, you are making a judgment. Is it true? How can you prove it? It doesn’t seem true on its face. Significance tests are circular arguments here. After the marriage, you are left with unquantifiable uncertainty. I'd assert that this paragraph can only appear on the 'denier' side of things. Is this because it embraces uncertainty, and implies we should not act until we have properly quantified it? One of the most interesting exchanges in the comments is between 'Sheri' and 'Brandon Gates', on whether it's better to accept a known-flawed model or to throw it out and have no model at all. My request to 'signalsmith', concentrating on Briggs because his positions are more self-contained: Re-reread Briggs article, ignoring the set-up paragraphs that explain what he's criticizing and why. That is, blind yourself as best as you can to the side that he is taking. Stop at the point where your pulse starts to rise and report back. Then let's see how 'duckingtest' responds to the same passage.

nkurz 12y ago

(responding both to you and 'duckingtest') No, the 'answer' is not that the person you disagree with "believes in magic" or "doesn't understand" the field they work in as respected experts. Appell goes on to try to explain why climate modelling is concerned with 'projection' rather than 'prediction', and has a very clear view of the difference between science and magic. Briggs has been a professor of statistics at Cornell, written several book on statistics, and published dozens of peer reviewed papers. Claiming that he is the "statistical equivalent of an anti-vaccer" might be a useful rhetorical strategy but unless you can point to some prominent mainstream career vaccine researchers that you'd also lump into this category, it has no basis in truth. Playing to a home crowd is easy, but has left us where we are with two locked down groups each trying to persuade the undecided middle that their opponent is the devil incarnate. This doesn't lead anywhere desirable, just to further entrenchment of positions. The "way out" is trying to formulate criticism that can be understood by the party being criticized and influences them and their followers to reevaluate their beliefs and approaches. I think it has to be something stylistic that we as readers associate with a world-view (a dog whistle) rather than the actual content of the statements. Take the paragraph in "Lesson 1": If you say the mixed marriage of splicing the disjoint series does not matter, you are making a judgment. Is it true? How can you prove it? It doesn’t seem true on its face. Significance tests are circular arguments here. After the marriage, you are left with unquantifiable uncertainty. I'd assert that this paragraph can only appear on the 'denier' side of things. Is this because it embraces uncertainty, and implies we should not act until we have properly quantified it? One of the most interesting exchanges in the comments is between 'Sheri' and 'Brandon Gates', on whether it's better to accept a known-flawed model or to throw it out and have no model at all. My request to 'signalsmith', concentrating on Briggs because his positions are more self-contained: Re-reread Briggs article, ignoring the set-up paragraphs that explain what he's criticizing and why. That is, blind yourself as best as you can to the side that he is taking. Stop at the point where your pulse starts to rise and report back. Then let's see how 'duckingtest' responds to the same passage.