Affiliation:
1. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1Z5, Canada
Abstract
One can argue that one of the main roles of the subject of statistics is to characterize what the evidence in the collected data says about questions of scientific interest. There are two broad questions that we will refer to as the estimation question and the hypothesis assessment question. For estimation, the evidence in the data should determine a particular value of an object of interest together with a measure of the accuracy of the estimate, while for the hypothesis assessment, the evidence in the data should provide evidence in favor of or against some hypothesized value of the object of interest together with a measure of the strength of the evidence. This will be referred to as the evidential approach to statistical reasoning, which can be contrasted with the behavioristic or decision-theoretic approach where the notion of loss is introduced, and the goal is to minimize expected losses. While the two approaches often lead to similar outcomes, this is not always the case, and it is commonly argued that the evidential approach is more suited to scientific applications. This paper traces the history of the evidential approach and summarizes current developments.
Funder
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Reference36 articles.
1. Response to the ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose;Ionides;Am. Stat.,2017
2. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, process, and purpose;Wasserstein;Am. Stat.,2016
3. Lehmann, E.L. (1995). Neyman’s statistical philosophy. Selected Works of E. L. Lehmann, Springer.
4. “Inductive Behavior” as a basic concept of philosophy of science;Neyman;Rev. Int. Stat. Inst.,1957
5. Godambe, V.P., and Sprott, D.A. (1971). Foundations of behavioristic statistics. Foundations of Statistical Inference, a Symposium, Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada.