> Except for posterior probability, none of these are tools
> for the actual problems. And posterior probability is not
> what is wanted; it is the posterior risk of the procedure.
>
> But even this relies on belief. An approach to rational
> behavior makes the prior a weighting measure, without
> ringing in belief. I suggest we keep it this way, and
> avoid the philosophical aspects
Disagree.
1. Determination of risk requires a model which is based on a belief system
(.e.g. there is/is not a minimum level of tremolite that causes
mesothelioma). Probability is difficult enough to deal with, let alone an
additional swamp called "risk". Those of us who have thought about
developing outcomes in terms of risk, basically have had to give it up. The
difference in interpretation of a risk value between different people is
much to great.
2. Weighing is again based on a belief system. Everything is not equal. Some
are more important than others.
>The data consists of what has been observed. The likelihood
>principle then mandates that the probabilities of unobserved
>events becomes irrelevant. This means that the typical test
>procedures (NOT the test STATISTICS) would have to be wrong.
3. This does not make sense. It needs something in addition.
I wrote:
>>Let us supose there are many plausible hypotheses. These include the
>>"nil hypothesis" any priori hypotheses any idea at all that may be
>>considered. Refer to these in terms of set of all plausible hypothesis
>>(including that of no effect) that are to be tested.
>The set of all plausible hypotheses is generally uncountable,
>even in the discrete case.
>>The process is to pick each hypothesis and test it.
>This cannot be done; there are too many.
4. If this is the result, then you have a really, really bad experiment. You
haven't thought about the problem and defined a finite region for
exploration. I sure could not do a PhD thesis and have it accepted if I
didn't have a defined region and objectives for the research.
5. Let me quote R.A. Fisher "he (the investigator) should only claim that a
phenomenon is experimentally demonstrated when he knows how to design an
experiment so that it will rarely fail to give a significant result" (Fisher
1929b). The experiment is then the means to obtain data to test the chosen
hypotheses.
DAHeiser
The outcome of the
>test is not only a probability, but a reality check (the investigators
>belief system).
===========================================================================
This list is open to everyone. Occasionally, less thoughtful
people send inappropriate messages. Please DO NOT COMPLAIN TO
THE POSTMASTER about these messages because the postmaster has no
way of controlling them, and excessive complaints will result in
termination of the list.
For information about this list, including information about the
problem of inappropriate messages and information about how to
unsubscribe, please see the web page at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===========================================================================
