Bayesian confirmation theory is a leading theory to decide the confirmation/refutation of a hypothesis based on probability calculus. While it may be much discussed in philosophy of science, is it actually practiced in terms of hypothesis testing by scientists? Since the assignment of some of the probabilities in the theory is open to debate and the risk of making the wrong decision is unknown, many scientists do not use the theory in hypothesis testing. Instead, they use alternative statistical tests that (...) can measure the risk or the reliability in decision making, circumventing some of the theoretical problems in practice. Therefore, the theory is not very popular in hypothesis testing among scientists at present. However, there are some proponents of Bayesian hypothesis testing, and software packages are made available to accelerate utilization by scientists. Time will tell whether Bayesian confirmation theory can become both a leading theory and a widely practiced method. In addition, this theory can be used to model the belief of scientists when testing hypotheses. (shrink)

The paper examines the claim that significance testing violates the Principle of Total Evidence. I argue that p-values violate PTE for two-sided tests but satisfy PTE for one-sided tests invoking a sufficient test statistic independent of the preferred theory of evidence. While the focus of the paper is to evaluate a particular claim about the relationship of significance testing and PTE, I clarify the reading of this methodological principle along the way.

Bayesian methods are ubiquitous in contemporary observational cosmology. They enter into three main tasks: cross-checking datasets for consistency; fixing constraints on cosmological parameters; and model selection. This article explores some epistemic limits of using Bayesian methods. The first limit concerns the degree of informativeness of the Bayesian priors and an ensuing methodological tension between task and task. The second limit concerns the choice of wide flat priors and related tension between parameter estimation and model selection. The Dark Energy Survey and (...) its recent Year 1 results illustrate both these limits concerning the use of Bayesianism. (shrink)

For model-based frequentist statistics, based on a parametric statistical model ${{\cal M}_\theta }$, the trustworthiness of the ensuing evidence depends crucially on the validity of the probabilistic assumptions comprising ${{\cal M}_\theta }$, the optimality of the inference procedures employed, and the adequateness of the sample size to learn from data by securing –. It is argued that the criticism of the postdata severity evaluation of testing results based on a small n by Rochefort-Maranda is meritless because it conflates [a] misuses (...) of testing with [b] genuine foundational problems. Interrogating this criticism reveals several misconceptions about trustworthy evidence and estimation-based effect sizes, which are uncritically embraced by the replication crisis literature. (shrink)

Bernoulli’s 1713 golden theorem is viewed retrospectively in the context of modern model-based frequentist inference that revolves around the concept of a prespecified statistical model Mθx\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{M}}_{{{\varvec{\uptheta}}}} \left( {\mathbf{x}} \right)$$\end{document}, defining the inductive premises of inference. It is argued that several widely-accepted claims relating to the golden theorem and frequentist inference are either misleading or erroneous: (a) Bernoulli solved the problem of inference ‘from probability to frequency’, and thus (b) the golden theorem (...) cannot justify an approximate Confidence Interval (CI) for the unknown parameter θ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\theta$$\end{document}, (c) Bernoulli identified the probability PA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$P\left( A \right)$$\end{document} with the relative frequency 1n∑k=1nxk\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\frac{1}{n}\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{n} {x_{k} }$$\end{document} of event A as a result of conflating f(x0|θ)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$f({\mathbf{x}}_{0} |\theta )$$\end{document} with f(θ|x0),\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$f(\theta |{\mathbf{x}}_{0} ),$$\end{document} where x0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathbf{x}}_{0}$$\end{document} denotes the observed data, and (d) the same ‘swindle’ is currently perpetrated by the p value testers. In interrogating the claims (a)–(d), the paper raises several foundational issues that are particularly relevant for statistical induction as it relates to the current discussions on the replication crises and the trustworthiness of empirical evidence, arguing that: [i] The alleged Bernoulli swindle is grounded in the unwarranted claim θ^nx0≃θ∗,\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hat{\theta }_{n} \left( {{\mathbf{x}}_{0} } \right) \simeq \theta^{*},$$\end{document} for a large enough n, where θ^nX\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hat{\theta }_{n} \left( {\mathbf{X}} \right)$$\end{document} is an optimal estimator of the true value θ∗\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\theta^{*}$$\end{document} of θ. [ii] Frequentist error probabilities are not conditional on hypotheses (H0 and H1) framed in terms of an unknown parameter θ since θ is neither a random variable nor an event. [iii] The direct versus inverse inference problem is a contrived and misplaced charge since neither conditional distribution f(x0|θ)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$f({\mathbf{x}}_{0} |\theta )$$\end{document} and f(θ|x0)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$f(\theta |{\mathbf{x}}_{0} )$$\end{document} exists (formally or logically) in model-based (Mθx\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{M}}_{{{\varvec{\uptheta}}}} \left( {\mathbf{x}} \right)$$\end{document}) frequentist inference. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to show how the problem of inflated effect sizes corrupts the severity measure of evidence. This has never been done. In fact, the Winner’s Curse is barely mentioned in the philosophical literature. Since the severity score is the predominant measure of evidence for frequentist tests in the philosophical literature, it is important to underscore its flaws. It is also crucial to bring the philosophical literature up to speed with the limits of classical testing. The (...) Winner’s Curse is one of them. The problem is that when a significant result is obtained by using an underpowered test, the severity score becomes particularly high for large discrepancies from the null-hypothesis. This means that such discrepancies are very well supported by the evidence according to that measure. However, it is now well documented that significant tests with low power display inflated effect sizes. They systematically show departures from the null hypothesis H0 that are much greater than they really are. From an epistemological point of view this means that a significant result produced by an underpowered test does not provide evidence for large discrepancies from H0. Therefore, the severity score is an inadequate measure of evidence. Given that we are now aware of the phenomenon of inflated effect sizes, it would be irresponsible to rely on the severity score to measure the strength of the evidence against the null. Instead, one must take appropriate measures to try and avoid using underpowered tests by setting a threshold for the sample size or by replicating the results of the experiment. (shrink)

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox displays how the use of a \ value ) in a frequentist hypothesis test can lead to an inference that is radically different from that of a Bayesian hypothesis test in the form advocated by Harold Jeffreys in the 1930s and common today. The setting is the test of a well-specified null hypothesis versus a composite alternative. The \ value, as well as the ratio of the likelihood under the null hypothesis to the maximized likelihood under the (...) alternative, can strongly disfavor the null hypothesis, while the Bayesian posterior probability for the null hypothesis can be arbitrarily large. The academic statistics literature contains many impassioned comments on this paradox, yet there is no consensus either on its relevance to scientific communication or on its correct resolution. The paradox is quite relevant to frontier research in high energy physics. This paper is an attempt to explain the situation to both physicists and statisticians, in the hope that further progress can be made. (shrink)

This article discusses the dual interpretation of the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox associated with Bayesian posterior probabilities and Bayes factors, both as a differentiation between frequentist and Bayesian statistics and as a pointer to the difficulty of using improper priors while testing. I stress the considerable impact of this paradox on the foundations of both classical and Bayesian statistics. While assessing existing resolutions of the paradox, I focus on a critical viewpoint of the paradox discussed by Spanos in Philosophy of Science.

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox exposes a rift between Bayesian and frequentist hypothesis testing that strikes at the heart of statistical inference. Contrary to what most current literature suggests, the paradox was central to the Bayesian testing methodology developed by Sir Harold Jeffreys in the late 1930s. Jeffreys showed that the evidence for a point-null hypothesis $${\mathcal {H}}_0$$ H 0 scales with $$\sqrt{n}$$ n and repeatedly argued that it would, therefore, be mistaken to set a threshold for rejecting $${\mathcal {H}}_0$$ H 0 (...) at a constant multiple of the standard error. Here, we summarize Jeffreys’s early work on the paradox and clarify his reasons for including the $$\sqrt{n}$$ n term. The prior distribution is seen to play a crucial role; by implicitly correcting for selection, small parameter values are identified as relatively surprising under $${\mathcal {H}}_1$$ H 1. We highlight the general nature of the paradox by presenting both a fully frequentist and a fully Bayesian version. We also demonstrate that the paradox does not depend on assigning prior mass to a point hypothesis, as is commonly believed. (shrink)

The main point of this paper is to underscore that tests with very low power will be significant only if the observations are deviant under both H0 and H1. Therefore, the results of those significant tests will generate misleadingly high severity scores for differences between H0 and H1 that are excessively overestimated. In other words, that measure of evidence is bound to fail in those cases. It will inevitably fail to adequately measure the strength of the evidence provided by tests (...) with low power. (shrink)