A SELECTIVE SURVEY OF SELECTIVE INFERENCE

Jonathan E. Taylor
{"title":"A SELECTIVE SURVEY OF SELECTIVE INFERENCE","authors":"Jonathan E. Taylor","doi":"10.1142/9789813272880_0170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is not difficult to find stories of a crisis in modern science, either in the popular press or in the scientific literature. There are likely multiple sources for this crisis. It is also well documented that one source of this crisis is the misuse of statistical methods in science, with the P -value receiving its fair share of criticism. It could be argued that this misuse of statistical methods is caused by a shift in how data is used in 21st century science compared to its use in the mid-20th century which presumed scientists had formal statistical hypotheses before collecting data. With the advent of sophisticated statistical software available to anybody this paradigm has been shifted to one in which scientists collect data first and ask questions later. 1 The new (?) scientific paradigm Figure 1: A simplified version of the scientific method. We are all familiar with a paradigm that does allow scientists to collect data first and ask questions later: the classical scientific method illustrated in Figure 1. A scientist collects data D, generates questions of interest Q(D), then collects fresh data D for confirmation and perhaps to discover additional questions of interest. The problem with this new paradigm is that it seeks to use D to answer these questions and may not have access to D. We pause here to note that Tukey used the term question rather than the more precise term hypothesis which statisticians might reasonably impute to be a statistical hypothesis. Given the computing capabilities of modern MSC2010: primary 62-02; secondary 62J15, 62J05, 62-07.","PeriodicalId":318252,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2018)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM 2018)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813272880_0170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is not difficult to find stories of a crisis in modern science, either in the popular press or in the scientific literature. There are likely multiple sources for this crisis. It is also well documented that one source of this crisis is the misuse of statistical methods in science, with the P -value receiving its fair share of criticism. It could be argued that this misuse of statistical methods is caused by a shift in how data is used in 21st century science compared to its use in the mid-20th century which presumed scientists had formal statistical hypotheses before collecting data. With the advent of sophisticated statistical software available to anybody this paradigm has been shifted to one in which scientists collect data first and ask questions later. 1 The new (?) scientific paradigm Figure 1: A simplified version of the scientific method. We are all familiar with a paradigm that does allow scientists to collect data first and ask questions later: the classical scientific method illustrated in Figure 1. A scientist collects data D, generates questions of interest Q(D), then collects fresh data D for confirmation and perhaps to discover additional questions of interest. The problem with this new paradigm is that it seeks to use D to answer these questions and may not have access to D. We pause here to note that Tukey used the term question rather than the more precise term hypothesis which statisticians might reasonably impute to be a statistical hypothesis. Given the computing capabilities of modern MSC2010: primary 62-02; secondary 62J15, 62J05, 62-07.
选择性推论的选择性调查
无论是在大众媒体上还是在科学文献中,都不难发现现代科学危机的故事。这场危机可能有多重根源。也有充分的证据表明,这场危机的一个根源是科学中统计方法的滥用,P值受到了应有的批评。可以认为,这种统计方法的滥用是由21世纪科学数据使用方式的转变引起的,而不是20世纪中期的数据使用方式,当时科学家在收集数据之前假设有正式的统计假设。随着任何人都可以使用的复杂统计软件的出现,这种范式已经转变为科学家先收集数据,然后再提出问题。新的(?)科学范式图1:科学方法的简化版本。我们都熟悉一种范式,它确实允许科学家先收集数据,然后再提出问题:如图1所示的经典科学方法。科学家收集数据D,生成感兴趣的问题Q(D),然后收集新数据D进行确认,可能还会发现其他感兴趣的问题。这个新范式的问题在于,它试图使用D来回答这些问题,但可能无法访问D。我们在这里暂停一下,注意到Tukey使用了术语“问题”,而不是更精确的术语“假设”,统计学家可能会合理地认为这是一个统计假设。考虑到现代MSC2010: primary 62-02的计算能力;secondary 62J15, 62J05, 62-07。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信