Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Statistical Inference as Severe Testing” as Want to Read:
Statistical Inference as Severe Testing
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

Statistical Inference as Severe Testing

really liked it 4.00  ·  Rating details ·  17 ratings  ·  2 reviews
Mounting failures of replication in social and biological sciences give a new urgency to critically appraising proposed reforms. This book pulls back the cover on disagreements between experts charged with restoring integrity to science. It denies two pervasive views of the role of probability in inference: to assign degrees of belief, and to control error rates in a long ...more
Hardcover, 486 pages
Published November 22nd 2018 by Cambridge University Press
More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Statistical Inference as Severe Testing, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Statistical Inference as Severe Testing

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

Showing 1-45
really liked it Average rating 4.00  · 
Rating details
 ·  17 ratings  ·  2 reviews


More filters
 | 
Sort order
Start your review of Statistical Inference as Severe Testing
Matt
Apr 01, 2019 marked it as abandoned  ·  review of another edition
I think I'd be wasting my time continuing with this. I'm not a statistician or a user of statistical methods, so I'm not really in a position to judge the book -- it's just not for me. A couple of thoughts anyway:

- The style is strange; it gave me the feeling of being dropped into the author's train of thought, or perhaps thrown headlong into its path. I don't think that was due to the complexity of the ideas, or even to the semantic density of the writing, but rather to some combination of stre
...more
Alex Hayes
I skipped excursion 5 because I couldn't take any more normal hypothesis testing examples. I have a long list of questions to answer for myself after reading this, but they are mostly about basic tenets of various statistical philosophies rather than severity itself. My (very naive) impression is that the primary contribution of severity is as justification for frequentist inference without having to refer to long run performance. I remain unclear on how severity and post-hoc power analysis are ...more
James
rated it really liked it
Jan 12, 2020
Peter Ellis
rated it really liked it
May 17, 2019
David
rated it really liked it
Sep 05, 2020
Cyberdionysos
rated it really liked it
Dec 20, 2019
Natarajan
rated it it was amazing
Sep 15, 2020
Paul McCabe
rated it it was amazing
Jan 08, 2019
Andrew Sayer
rated it really liked it
Feb 07, 2019
Nathaniel
rated it really liked it
May 26, 2019
Mycroftw
rated it it was amazing
Aug 15, 2020
Jens Fust
rated it it was ok
May 19, 2020
Nathaniel Forde
rated it it was amazing
Dec 01, 2019
Ryan Boyd
rated it really liked it
Nov 02, 2018
Roeland
rated it liked it
Feb 01, 2019
Patrick Boehnke
rated it really liked it
Feb 19, 2019
Rousselet
rated it really liked it
Feb 02, 2020
Richard
rated it liked it
Dec 21, 2018
Eli Weinstein
marked it as to-read
Feb 15, 2018
Andrei Földes
marked it as to-read
Mar 03, 2018
Jeremy
marked it as to-read
Mar 04, 2018
Tim Mcleod
marked it as to-read
Mar 26, 2018
Nat
marked it as to-read
Jun 01, 2018
Andrew
marked it as to-read
Jul 01, 2018
Gavin
marked it as to-read
Jul 08, 2018
Arnisador
marked it as to-read
Sep 01, 2018
Marco
marked it as to-read
Sep 05, 2018
Anton
added it
Sep 11, 2018
Treesap
marked it as to-read
Sep 23, 2018
Law
marked it as to-read
Sep 23, 2018
Matthieu de Wit
marked it as to-read
Sep 23, 2018
John
is currently reading it
Sep 23, 2018
Mainak Jas
marked it as to-read
Sep 24, 2018
Rob Meijer
marked it as to-read
Oct 01, 2018
Ben
marked it as to-read
Oct 03, 2018
Riccardo
is currently reading it
Oct 08, 2018
Myfanwy Johnston
marked it as to-read
Oct 10, 2018
Emil Uffelmann
marked it as to-read
Oct 13, 2018
Josh
marked it as to-read
Oct 17, 2018
Samuel Beer
marked it as to-read
Oct 20, 2018
Kav
marked it as to-read
Oct 21, 2018
Emily
marked it as to-read
Oct 22, 2018
Daniel Alcalá
is currently reading it
Oct 28, 2018
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Readers also enjoyed

  • Principles of Statistical Inference
  • Ducks, Newburyport
  • R for Data Science: Import, Tidy, Transform, Visualize, and Model Data
  • Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe
  • J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century
  • Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan
  • The Big Over Easy (Nursery Crime, #1)
  • What Science Is and How It Really Works
  • Build a Career in Data Science
  • Computer Age Statistical Inference: Algorithms, Evidence, and Data Science
  • Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism
  • Death Note, Vol. 2: Confluence (Death Note, #2)
  • Tyll
  • Death's End (Remembrance of Earth’s Past #3)
  • The Forever War (The Forever War, #1)
  • Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions
  • Why Aren't We Dead Yet?: The Survivor's Guide to the Immune System
  • The Hatred of Poetry
See similar books…

Goodreads is hiring!

If you like books and love to build cool products, we may be looking for you.
Learn more »

Related Articles

For more than a decade, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the world-renowned astrophysicist and host of the popular radio and Emmy-nominated...
75 likes · 13 comments
“The influence of the biased selection is not on the believability of H but rather on the capability of the test to have unearthed errors. The error probing capability of the testing procedure is being diminished. If you engage in cherry picking, you are not “sincerely trying,” as Popper puts it, to find flaws with claims, but instead you are finding evidence in favor of a well-fitting hypothesis that you deliberately construct – barred only if your intuitions say it’s unbelievable. The job that was supposed to be accomplished by an account of statistics now has to be performed by you. Yet you are the one most likely to follow your preconceived opinions, biases, and pet theories.” 0 likes
“If you report results selectively, it becomes easy to prejudge hypotheses: yes, the data may accord amazingly well with a hypothesis H, but such a method is practically guaranteed to issue so good a fit even if H is false and not warranted by the evidence. If it is predetermined that a way will be found to either obtain or interpret data as evidence for H, then data are not being taken seriously in appraising H. H is essentially immune to having its flaws uncovered by the data. H might be said to have “passed” the test, but it is a test that lacks stringency or severity. Everyone understands that this is bad evidence, or no test at all. I call this the severity requirement.” 0 likes
More quotes…