Stephen Spielman
Biographic Data
| ID | 957201 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Stephen Spielman |
| GIVEN NAMES | Stephen |
| FAMILY NAME | Spielman |
| SIGNATURE | SPIELMAN S |
| AFFILIATIONS | Lehman College |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 6 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 24 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 6 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1972 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1978 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Statistical Dogma and the Logic of Significance Testing
In a recent note ([3]) Roger Carlson presented a rather negative appraisal of my treatment of the logic of Fisherian significance testing in [10]. The main issue between us involves Carlson's thesis that, within the limits set by Fisher, standard significance tests are valuable tools of data analysis as they stand , i.e., without modification of the structure of the reasoning they employ. Call this the adequacy thesis. In my paper I argued that (…
Physical probability and Bayesian statistics
The Logic of Tests of Significance
In spite of the fact that the Neyman–Pearson theory of testing is the official theory of statistical testing, most research publications in the social sciences use a pattern of inductive reasoning that is characteristic of Fisherian tests of significance. The exact structure and rationale of this pattern of reasoning is widely misunderstood. The goal of the paper is to describe precisely the pattern and its rationale, and to show that while it is…
On the Infirmities of Gillies's Rule
A Refutation of the Neyman-Pearson Theory of Testing
Lewis on Immodest Inductive Models
In a recent paper [2] David Lewis offered an extremely interesting and, if correct, important solution to the main unsolved problem of Carnap's program for inductive logic—the choice of an appropriate C -function (=an inductive method). The gist of Lewis' solution is to first obtain a pilot sample from the target population (a time-honored procedure in statistical methodology) and then select, on the basis of this sample, from among the immodest …
A Refutation of the Neyman-Pearson Theory of Testing
The Logic of Tests of Significance
In spite of the fact that the Neyman–Pearson theory of testing is the official theory of statistical testing, most research publications in the social sciences use a pattern of inductive reasoning that is characteristic of Fisherian tests of significance. The exact structure and rationale of this pattern of reasoning is widely misunderstood. The goal of the paper is to describe precisely the pattern and its rationale, and to show that while it is…
Physical probability and Bayesian statistics
On the Infirmities of Gillies's Rule
Lewis on Immodest Inductive Models
In a recent paper [2] David Lewis offered an extremely interesting and, if correct, important solution to the main unsolved problem of Carnap's program for inductive logic—the choice of an appropriate C -function (=an inductive method). The gist of Lewis' solution is to first obtain a pilot sample from the target population (a time-honored procedure in statistical methodology) and then select, on the basis of this sample, from among the immodest …
Statistical Dogma and the Logic of Significance Testing
In a recent note ([3]) Roger Carlson presented a rather negative appraisal of my treatment of the logic of Fisherian significance testing in [10]. The main issue between us involves Carlson's thesis that, within the limits set by Fisher, standard significance tests are valuable tools of data analysis as they stand , i.e., without modification of the structure of the reasoning they employ. Call this the adequacy thesis. In my paper I argued that (…
Lewis on Immodest Inductive Models
In a recent paper [2] David Lewis offered an extremely interesting and, if correct, important solution to the main unsolved problem of Carnap's program for inductive logic—the choice of an appropriate C -function (=an inductive method). The gist of Lewis' solution is to first obtain a pilot sample from the target population (a time-honored procedure in statistical methodology) and then select, on the basis of this sample, from among the immodest …
A Refutation of the Neyman-Pearson Theory of Testing
The Logic of Tests of Significance
In spite of the fact that the Neyman–Pearson theory of testing is the official theory of statistical testing, most research publications in the social sciences use a pattern of inductive reasoning that is characteristic of Fisherian tests of significance. The exact structure and rationale of this pattern of reasoning is widely misunderstood. The goal of the paper is to describe precisely the pattern and its rationale, and to show that while it is…
On the Infirmities of Gillies's Rule
Physical probability and Bayesian statistics
Statistical Dogma and the Logic of Significance Testing
In a recent note ([3]) Roger Carlson presented a rather negative appraisal of my treatment of the logic of Fisherian significance testing in [10]. The main issue between us involves Carlson's thesis that, within the limits set by Fisher, standard significance tests are valuable tools of data analysis as they stand , i.e., without modification of the structure of the reasoning they employ. Call this the adequacy thesis. In my paper I argued that (…
Epistemology (6 works) · Philosophy (6 works) · Computer Science (4 works) · Mathematics (4 works) · Statistics (4 works) · Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference (3 works) · Philosophy and History of Science (3 works) · Philosophy of science (3 works) · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics (2 works) · Neural Networks and Applications (2 works)