

Statistics Done Wrong: Inferential statistics and how scientists screw it up - capnrefsmmat
http://www.refsmmat.com/statistics/

======
PaulHoule
Nice article.

I'm a little disappointed that Bayes never gets mentioned here, however, since
Bayesian methods are a systematic way to deal with all the problems in
classical statistics that are talked about in this article (ie. stopping
rules, "base rate")

Also there's no mention at all of the widespread abuse of parametric statstics
-- that all the time people take some test out of a book that has 5 or 6
conditions that need to be true to use it and those conditions don't apply.
There are many nonparametric techniques that are simple and foolproof and
sacrifice a small amount of power.

It's 2012 and we can make short work of tough problems in a Bayesian framework
with MCMC. There are good textbooks in Bayesian methods today, unlike the
1970s. It's time to send classical statistics packing.

~~~
capnrefsmmat
I was tempted to introduce Bayes' theorem to explain the base rate fallacy;
however, I couldn't devise a way to very quickly introduce it without just
making it a magical formula I pulled out of my rear. It deserves more
discussion than that. When I take a course on Bayesian statistics I may write
a follow-up on alternatives to the flawed frequentist methods in the article.

Thanks for the tip about parametric statistics. I'll do some research.

