Article

Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics

Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, USA Statistics Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Santa Fe Institute, Pittsburgh, USA.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.53). 02/2012; 66(1). DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A substantial school in the philosophy of science identifies Bayesian inference with inductive inference and even rationality as such, and seems to be strengthened by the rise and practical success of Bayesian statistics. We argue that the most successful forms of Bayesian statistics do not actually support that particular philosophy but rather accord much better with sophisticated forms of hypothetico-deductivism. We examine the actual role played by prior distributions in Bayesian models, and the crucial aspects of model checking and model revision, which fall outside the scope of Bayesian confirmation theory. We draw on the literature on the consistency of Bayesian updating and also on our experience of applied work in social science. Clarity about these matters should benefit not just philosophy of science, but also statistical practice. At best, the inductivist view has encouraged researchers to fit and compare models without checking them; at worst, theorists have actively discouraged practitioners from performing model checking because it does not fit into their framework.

0 Followers
 · 
150 Views
  • Source
    Journal of Management 01/2014; 41(2):692-717. DOI:10.1177/0149206314554215 · 6.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most epidemiology textbooks that discuss models are vague on details of model selection. This lack of detail may be understandable since selection should be strongly influenced by features of the particular study, including contextual (prior) information about covariates that may confound, modify, or mediate the effect under study. It is thus important that authors document their modeling goals and strategies and understand the contextual interpretation of model parameters and model selection criteria. To illustrate this point, we review several established strategies for selecting model covariates, describe their shortcomings, and point to refinements, assuming that the main goal is to derive the most accurate effect estimates obtainable from the data and available resources. This goal shifts the focus to prediction of exposure or potential outcomes (or both) to adjust for confounding; it thus differs from the goal of ordinary statistical modeling, which is to passively predict outcomes. Nonetheless, methods and software for passive prediction can be used for causal inference as well, provided that the target parameters are shifted appropriately.
    Annual Review of Public Health 03/2015; 36:89-108. DOI:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122559 · 6.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We review a number of recent studies that have identified either correlations between different linguistic features (e.g., implicational universals) or correlations between linguistic features and nonlinguistic properties of speakers or their environment (e.g., effects of geography on vocabulary). We compare large-scale quantitative studies with more traditional theoretical and historical linguistic research and identify divergent assumptions and methods that have led linguists to be skeptical of correlational work. We also attempt to demystify statistical techniques and point out the importance of informed critiques of the validity of statistical approaches. Finally, we describe various methods used in recent correlational studies to deal with the fact that, because of contact and historical relatedness, individual languages in a sample rarely represent independent data points, and we show how these methods may allow us to explore linguistic prehistory to a greater time depth than is possible with orthodox comparative reconstruction.
    01/2015; 1(1):221-241. DOI:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124819

Preview

Download
4 Downloads
Available from