News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What a debate about p-values shows about science. Parent comment

Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by BenoitEssiambre on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @08:21AM (#15391877)
vaguely P(observations|pure noise generator) ~ P(pure noise generator | observations)

I agree there are debates surrounding priors, especially when you get into higher order, meta or purely hypothetical territory (there is no actual noise generator here) like this, but I think these are unavoidable.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by nonbel on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @10:40AM (#15392706)
>"vaguely P(observations|pure noise generator) ~ P(pure noise generator | observations)"

For this to be true, P(observations) ~ P(pure noise generator) as you said earlier. Anyway, you can look at it from either perspective, doesn't really matter.

On what basis do you claim this is reasonable to expect? I suspect you have none whatsoever... in fact simple thought experiments will lead us to the opposite conclusion, and there is plenty of data telling us the same.

[ Parent | on HN ]