The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: kolmogov-smirnov, wilcoxon and kruskal tests
Replies: 14   Last Post: Dec 31, 2012 6:38 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 442
Registered: 10/11/06
Re: kolmogov-smirnov, wilcoxon and kruskal tests
Posted: Dec 31, 2012 2:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Saturday, 29 December 2012 23:38:41 UTC, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:21:31 -0800 (PST), illywhacker
> <> wrote:

> >This just shows the total mess (meaningless concepts, ad hoc tests, unclarified assumptions, contradictory results with no explanation, "I would be willing to use...", confusion on the part of the user) that arises from the nonsensical nature of classical statistical hypothesis testing. The best advice here is: learn Bayesian methods.
> >
> Are you saying that Bayesian methods are so limited and narrow that
> you, the Bayesian, cannot apply alternate assumptions and tests? Or
> get confused by conflicting results? I've stayed away from Baysian
> because it seemed more confusing, not less.

No. I am saying that assumptions are clearer. For example, estimation requires an explicit loss function; an explicit prior is needed, even for non-parametric procedures; etc.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.