
Statistical Undecidability (2010) - yarapavan
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1691165&download=yes
======
apathy
Epic self-citation (the ONLY citation) but this looks like a major cautionary
exposition for fields where expected effect sizes may be very small (eg
genetics).

~~~
aab0
What do you expect from Taleb?

~~~
apathy
He is amazingly arrogant. Possibly several nanoDijsktras

------
stdbrouw
Given that the statistician's mantra is that no model is true, it's just that
some are useful, I would expect to see a sensitivity analysis of any claim
being made as to the effect of choosing the wrong model on the accuracy of
parameter estimates or predictions. Instead, what we get here is mathematical
smoke and mirrors, 'cause ultimately what the paper says is that even when you
have a very large sample, people might reasonably disagree about how to model
that sample and that the data itself won't be sufficient to decide which model
is best -- hence "statistical undecidability". Okay, yeah, sure, interesting
point, but not exactly shocking to anyone who has ever used any sort of
statistics.

