Philosophical or empirical incommensurability of frequentist versus Bayesian thinking

• Authors: Trafimow David

Title variants

PL

Zwolennicy częstości a zwolennicy podejścia bayesowskiego. Spór o niewspółmierność w znaczeniu filozoficznym i empirycznym

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Frequentists and Bayesians disagree about the soundness of performing calculations based, in an important part, on prior information. The disagreement goes back to a basic philosophical disagreement about how to conceptualize the meaning of probability. As frequentists and Bayesians use the term differently, there is a basic philosophical incommensurability. However, this philosophical incommensurability need not imply an empirical incommensurability. It is possible for there to be, simultaneously, philosophical incommensurability and empirical commensurability. This possibility implies consequences that this article discusses.

PL

Zwolennicy częstości i podejścia bayesowskiego nie zgadzają się co do rzetelności wykonywania obliczeń opartych w istotnej części na wcześniejszych informacjach. Niezgoda powraca do podstawowego sporu filozoficznego dotyczącego tego, jak określać znaczenie prawdopodobieństwa. Ponieważ obydwie grupy naukowców używają tego terminu w inny sposób, powstaje kluczowa filozoficzna niewspółmierność. Jednak w efekcie nie musi ona oznaczać empirycznej niewspółmierności. Możliwe jest, że jednocześnie może istnieć niewspółmierność filozoficzna z empiryczną współmiernością. W artykule omówiono konsekwencje przedstawionej sytuacji.

Keywords

EN

incommensurability; commensurability; a priori procedure; estimation; hypothesis testing; Bayes factors

PL

niewspółmierność; współmierność; procedura a priori; estymacja; testowanie hipotez; wskaźniki bayesowskie

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Journal: Econometrics. Ekonometria. Advances in Applied Data Analytics
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 25-48

Contributors

author

Trafimow David

• New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, United States

References

• Andersson, G. B. (1991). Epidemiology of spinal disorders. In J. Frymoyer (Ed.), The adult spine: Principles and practice (pp. 107-146). New York, NY: Raven Press.
• Baggott, J. (2015). Origins: The scientific story of creation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Berk, R. A., and Freedman, D. A. (2003). Statistical assumptions as empirical commitments. In T. G. Blomberg and S. Cohen (Eds). Law, punishment, and social control: Essays in honor of Sheldon Messinger (2nd Ed, pp. 235-254). Aldine de Gruyter.
• Boos, N., Rieder, R., Schade, V., Spratt, K. F., Semmer, N., and Aebi, M. (1995). The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, work perception, and psychosocial factors in identifying symptomatic disc herniations. Spine, 20, 2613-2625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199512150-00002
• Borenstein, D. G., Wiesel, D. G., and Boden, S. D. (1995). Low back pain-medical diagnosis and comprehensive management (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.
• Box, G. E. P., and Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Bradley, M. T., and Brand, A. (2016). Significance testing needs a taxonomy: Or how the Fisher, Neyman- Pearson controversy resulted in the inferential tail wagging the measurement dog. Psychological
• Reports, 119(2), 487-504. doi: 10.1177/0033294116662659
• Briggs, W. (2016). Uncertainty: The soul of modeling, probability and statistics. New York: Springer.
• Briggs, W. (2019). Everything wrong with p-values under one roof. In V. Kreinovich, N. N. Thach, N. D. Trung, and D. Van Thanh (Eds.), Beyond traditional probabilistic methods in econometrics (pp. 22-44). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997-1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
• Cohen, J. (1997). The earth is round (p < .05). In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, and J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 21-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Frymoyer, J. W. (1988). Epidemiology. In J. W. Frymoyer, and S. L. Gordon (Eds.), New perspectives on low back pain (pp. 19-33) (Symposium, Workshop, Airlie). Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.
• Gillies, D. (2000). Philosophical theories of probability. London: Taylor and Francis.
• Godfrey-Smith P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Greenland, S. (2017). Invited commentary: The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186, 639-645. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx259
• Grice, J. W. (2017). Comment on Locascio’s results blind manuscript evaluation proposal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 254-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1352505
• Halsey, L. G., Curran-Everett, D., Vowler, S. L., and Drummond, G. B. (2015). The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12, 179-185. doi:10.1038/nmeth.3288
• Hubbard, R. (2016). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications.
• Hyman, M. (2017). Can ‘results blind manuscript evaluation’ assuage ‘publication bias’? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 247-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350581
• Jensen, M. C., Brant-Zawadzki, M. N., Obuchowski, N., Modic, M. T., Malkasian, D., and Ross, J. S. (1994). Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. New England Journal of Medicine, 331, 69-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199407143310201
• Lawrence, R. C., Feseon, D. T., Helmick, C. G., Arnold, L. M., Choi, H., Deyo, R. A., … Wolfe, F. (2008). Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States Part II. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 58, 26-35.
• Li, H., Trafimow, D., Wang, T., Wang, C., and Hu, L. (2020). User-friendly computer programs so econometricians can run the a priori procedure. Frontiers in Management and Business, 1(1), 2-6. doi: 10.25082/FMB.2020.01.002
• Kline, R. (2017). Comment on Locascio, results blind science publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 256-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1355308
• Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Locascio, J. (2017a). Results blind publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 39(5), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1336093
• Locascio, J. (2017b). Rejoinder to responses to “results blind publishing.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 39(5), 258-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1356305
• Marks, M. J. (2017). Commentary on Locascio 2017. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 39(5), 252-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350580
• McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., and Tackett, J. L. (2018). Abandon statistical significance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07588.
• Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241-301. doi: I0.1037//1082-989X.S.2.241
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
• Popper, K. R. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. London: Routledge.
• Stigler, S. M. (1990). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Trafimow, D. (2003). Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes’s theorem. Psychological Review, 110(3), 526-535. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.526
• Trafimow, D. (2006). Using epistemic ratios to evaluate hypotheses: An imprecision penalty for imprecise hypotheses. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 431-462. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.431-462
• Trafimow, D. (2019a). A frequentist alternative to significance testing, p-values, and confidence intervals. Econometrics, 7(2), 1-14. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/7/2/26
• Trafimow, D. (2019b). A taxonomy of model assumptions on which P is based and implications for added benefit in the sciences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(6), 571-583. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2019.1610592
• Trafimow, D. (2020). Our intellectual children: Kuhnian ants or Feyerabendian questioners? Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(2), 88-92. doi: 10.25082/AERE.2020.02.005
• Trafimow, D., and Marks, M. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-2. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991
• Trafimow, D., and Marks, M. (2016). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 1-2. doi:10.1080/01973533.2016.1141030
• Trafimow, D., and Trafimow, J. H. (2016). The shocking implications of Bayes’ theorem for diagnosing herniated nucleus pulposus based on MRI scans. Cogent Medicine, 3: 1133270. doi:10.1080/2331205X.2015.1133270
• Valentine, J. C., Aloe, A. M., and Lau, T. S. (2015). Life after NHST: How to describe your data without “p-ing” everywhere. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 260-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1060240
• Wasserstein, R. L., and Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2). doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
• Wei, Z., Wang, T., Trafimow, D., and Talordphop, K. (2020). Extending the a priori procedure to normal Bayes models. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 13(2), 169-183. doi: 10.6148/IJITAS.202006_13(2).0004
• Ziliak, S. T., and McCloskey, D. N. (2016). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.