Rationality, Markets, and Morals released their special issue on the philosophy of science in Bayesian statistics.
- Statistical Scientist Meets a Philosopher of Science: A Conversation
- Statistical Science and Philosophy of Science: Where Do/Should They Meet in 2011 (and Beyond)?
- You May Believe You Are a Bayesian But You Are Probably Wrong
- Induction and Deduction in Bayesian Data Analysis
- The Renegade Subjectivist: Jose Bernardo’s Objective Bayesianism
- Foundational Issues in Statistical Modeling: Statistical Model Specification and Validation
- Empirical Economic Model Discovery and Theory Evaluation
- Low Assumptions, High Dimensions
I haven’t had the opportunity to read through the entire issue yet. Andrew Gelman already has some extensive commentary on his article and “Statistical Scientist Meets a Philosopher of Science: A Conversation”. Really, Andrew’s lengthy follow-up post boils-down to Peano-Russell’s axiom: all logical arguments must begin with an assumption. This is a short assessment on a blog post for an entire journal, so perhaps a little unfair to the nuanced arguments made by all authors.
The journal is also inviting comments on this issue.
Tom
Trin Turner
Scott Pellegrino
joshuaupson
This is like candy to me! I can’t wait to get knee deep in this reading! There has been a lot of Bayes-hate lately and I can’t wait to see which way this special issue leans.
Good lord Tom, could you give us anymore to read! I feel like a law student. Its really great to see axiomatization get attention though and I find that one in particular hard to argue. How does the statistical scientist deal with Godel’s problem in light of axiomatizing?