Talk:Frequentist probability

message: It is my understanding that classical statistics encompasses more than just the frequency probability interpretation, but also focuses on parametric statistics and statistical hypothesis testing.  Also, while the Bayesian perspective on probability is an alternative to the frequentist perspective, I think that there are more "alternatives" to classical statistics than just the Bayesian perspective or paradigm alone.  For example, nonparametric statistics is decisively non-classical, but it is not necessarily non-frequentist.
On these grounds I think classical statistics deserves its own page.  Cazort 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statisticians that are frequentists doesn't have to agree when it comes to statistical practice, and often they don't. So yes, I agree that it's not entirely correct to link classical statistic to this page. I think the main reason why we have this incorrect redirect is simply that no one has started a page under that name yet, so please go ahead! :-) iNic (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical statistics redirect

message: I dispute this "Life on Mars" example... It is not because this thought experiment is traditionally used by the subjectivists to explain the way they think, that they mean this to be a case where you would not be able to solve the problem thinking in other paradigms. A good argument for subjectivism is not necessarily a good counter-argument for frequencialism. This smeels to me as naïve maniqueism.
I believe there is a lot of urban legend and misunderstood statements around the different interpretations of probability. I would like to see a quote from a sound book about probabilities, written by an author of either of the said-to-be-conflicting sides, where he actually says that he believes frequentism cannot conceive to attribute a probability to the existence of life in Mars 1000000 years ago. I am afraid that what is written here is just an echo of  uncertain discussions at university cafeterias!...
This statement is controversial only because life on Mars is such a large thing, difficult to grasp. Now, imagine for example the [Alexander_Oparin|Oparin experiment]. If a frequentist can assign a probability to "Life in Oparin's bottle 50 years ago", why wouldn't he assign to "Life on Mars 50 millions of years ago"?
I dislike making such arrogant claims inside Wikipedia, but I believe the use of this Mars thing as being the epitome of the (said) difference between frequencialism and subjectivism is plain wrong. It lacks basis as much as my claims might... Please, let's find something more specific, something de Finetti might have said when contrasting his theories to others, and not when explaining his ideas by their own. Or else we are building and artificial dissent. I believe we are trying hard to find dichotomies to make things look simpler to understand, while the subject is in fact much more difficult. Mixing controversial subjects as life, geology and chaos only make things worse.
In other words: please, let's be careful not to pick up an example of how subjectivism works, and try to transform it in an example of why the paradigms might be different!... I feel someone was feeling bad about the lack of a good example that would contrast the two paradigms, and tried to build one from an example created with other intention. I don't buy it... Please tell me where this use of the “Life on Mars” problem as a way to contrast the two paradigms came from. I bet $0.87 that this did not came from any books by an author with a Wikipedia page, while I would bet $0,95 that such an author might have used the example simply to demonstrate how subjectivism works (and not contrasting). (sorry for the large and confuse posting...) -- NIC1138 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think it's silly too and I have tried to delete it several times before. However, there are some quite strong opinions among some authors here that we need to talk about martians on this page, otherwise this page gets too biased toward frequentism, they claim. Well this page IS about frequentism, isn't it? So please go ahead and remove it and we will see what happens. I would also like to know the source for this example about martians. I have never seen it in a book. It is for sure not mentioned anywhere in the books that are listed as references here. iNic (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life on Mars 

message: I've dropped-in the beginnings of a history-of-thought section.  Unfortunately, while I'm familiar with some of the important frequentists after Venn, I don't really know how they properly fit-together historically, nor do I have familiarity with all of them. (At present, for example, I don't know much about George Chrystal.) —SlamDiego←T 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A history section is a good idea. I'll try to contribute here. But who is George Chrystal? Or rather, what did he do in this field. Never heard that name in this context. iNic (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about as puzzled as you, but I've encountered multiple references to Chrystal as somehow the next important figure after Venn in the history of frequentism.  I haven't yet read what, exactly, Chrystal is supposed to have done (and I've been at other things, and not pursued the issue diligently). —SlamDiego←T 09:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I have never seen his name in this context. And as long as you don't inform me which references you refer to I can't include anything about this man in the article. iNic (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chrystal's work in question was “On some Fundamental Principles in the Theory of Probability” (Transactions of the Actuarial Society of Edinburgh new series 2 (1891), 421-439) and Algebra.  It is referenced in such works as Fisher's Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, as Probability Theory editted by Hendricks, Pedersen, & Jørgensen, and as Zabell's Symmetry and Its Discontents. (I've seen many references to Chrystal's work on probability; but, again, I've not pursued the issue.) —SlamDiego←T 10:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

text: OK thank you for the references. I'll check what this is all about next time I visit a library, which will be quite soon I hope. iNic (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with that.  Again, I know little more than that some authors treat Chrystal as significant, which doesn't even demonstrate that he really is significant, though it does strongly suggest it. —SlamDiego←T 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Every time you find a vector you have an error too small to be written as a real number. This level of precision is math, not metaphysics. Even systems that do write it use extreme yet perfectly valid math. However gruesome it is to learn, the objectivity of frequentist probability is not undermined by extrapolating from an infinite series.108.65.0.169 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Calculus is not Metaphysics

message: Melcombe, shortly after the article move, you also deleted sections that ascribed the the frequentist approach to certain authors. Why? Is this incorrect? Who, then, are the authors that are proponents of this approach?  I mean, clearly, the frequentist approach is a paradigm shift, there was nothing wrong with that sentence.  I just finished reading James Franklin's book on  probability in the middle ages; although he never uses the words or the concept of "paradigm shift", that seems, to me, to be appropriate. Unless, perhaps, one rejects the very notion and correctness of the idea of a "paradigm shift", in general. Is that the issue? linas (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored some of the random deletions. iNic (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not random deletions. They related to the introduction of confusion between frequency/frequentist probability and frequentist inference, and to various unsourced statements of opinion. Melcombe (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: There is a suggestion to change the name of the article to Frequentism, which is commonly used as the label for the topic of this article. Let's vote:
# I vote yes. iNic (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to want a vote, then you should do it properly. Procedures are described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This has various advantages, in particular in terms of notifying appropriate project pages and getting an admin involved in solving any conflicts related to existing articles. Melcombe (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Several perople have raised objections already. The standard period for discussing renaming is 1 week under the formal approach. You haven't intestigated the formal vote as requested, so no vote has yet taken place. Melcombe (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

text: One recurring problem with wikipedia is the fair amount of bickering that goes on. Its bad for the ego, and escalations make it hard to reach agreement later. And it leads to editor burnout.  Please take care to be gentle. linas (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of name of the article