1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians - Revision history

Frankie: /* Explanation */ wikify

2013-01-14T14:12:48Z

‎Explanation: wikify

Lcarsos: What is going on here? There's no newlines in title texts

2013-01-01T14:36:06Z

What is going on here? There's no newlines in title texts

Davidy22 at 14:31, 1 January 2013

2013-01-01T14:31:24Z

198.84.184.180: /* Explanation */

2012-11-29T15:26:15Z

‎Explanation

St.nerol at 17:24, 23 November 2012

2012-11-23T17:24:18Z

St.nerol at 17:23, 23 November 2012

2012-11-23T17:23:54Z

St.nerol at 17:23, 23 November 2012

2012-11-23T17:23:36Z

Bpothier: changing wiki link to pretty format

2012-11-18T09:25:46Z

changing wiki link to pretty format

75.75.125.153: /* Explanation */

2012-11-17T22:49:28Z

‎Explanation

Lcarsos: /* Explanation */ using a real wikipedia link.

2012-11-15T05:25:47Z

‎Explanation: using a real wikipedia link.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 This is another comic about the accuracy of presidential election predictions that used Bayesian statistical models, such as Nate Silver's ''538'' and Professor Sam Wang's ''PEC''. Thomas Bayes studied conditional probability - the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence".
-In the comic, the likelihood that the detector is lying is much higher than the likelihood of the Sun exploding. Therefore, one should conclude that a single "yes" result is probably a false positive. The bit about "p < 0.05" comes from a naive interpretation of modern scientific research standards (known as the P value), where a result is presumed to be valid if there is less than a 5% chance that it came from random chance. There is a 1/36 chance of rolling two sixes on 2d6.
+In the comic, the likelihood that the detector is lying is much higher than the likelihood of the Sun exploding. Therefore, one should conclude that a single "yes" result is probably a false positive. The bit about "p < 0.05" comes from a naive interpretation of {{w|P-value}}, a scientific research standard where a result is presumed to be valid if there is less than a 5% chance that it is merely random coincidence. There is a 1/36 chance of rolling two sixes on 2d6.
 The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which is not actually the case.  The Bayesian interpretation and the frequentist interpretation are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong.  It's the misuse of P values that causes the character in the panel labeled "Frequentist Statistician" to conclude that the sun has exploded, not the use of frequentist statistics. (In particular, P-values are usually used only for numerical values that are known to fall along a specific distribution &ndash; in this case, it is used to determine the significance of a discrete event, which is wrong.)
 [[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]
 The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights_and_Knaves#Question_3|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''Labyrinth'', which is referenced in the text.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 | title     = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
 | image     = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
-| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--'
+| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}
-−
 [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?'
-−
 [roll] '... yes.'}}
 ==Explanation==

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 | title     = Frequentists vs. Bayesians
 | image     = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png
-| imagesize =
+| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--'
-| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--'<br>[roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?'<br>[roll] '... yes.'}}
 ==Explanation==
@@ Line 26: / Line 29: @@
 :Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.
 :Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us.  Otherwise, it tells the truth.
-:Frequentist Statistician:: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
+:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?
 :Detector: ''roll'' YES.
@@ Line 35: / Line 38: @@
 :Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.
 {{comic discussion}}
 [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
 [[Category:Math]]
 [[Category:Statistics]]
 [[Category:Physics]]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 In the comic, the likelihood that the detector is lying is much higher than the likelihood of the Sun exploding. Therefore, one should conclude that a single "yes" result is probably a false positive. The bit about "p < 0.05" comes from a naive interpretation of modern scientific research standards (known as the P value), where a result is presumed to be valid if there is less than a 5% chance that it came from random chance. There is a 1/36 chance of rolling two sixes on 2d6.
-The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which is not actually the case.  The Bayesian interpretation and the frequentist interpretation are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong.  It's the misuse of P values that causes the character in the panel labeled "Frequentist Statistician" to conclude that the sun has exploded, not the use of frequentist statistics.
+The title and the last two frames suggest that "frequentist" interpretation of statistics is somehow wrong, which is not actually the case.  The Bayesian interpretation and the frequentist interpretation are not mutually exclusive and neither is wrong.  It's the misuse of P values that causes the character in the panel labeled "Frequentist Statistician" to conclude that the sun has exploded, not the use of frequentist statistics. (In particular, P-values are usually used only for numerical values that are known to fall along a specific distribution &ndash; in this case, it is used to determine the significance of a discrete event, which is wrong.)
 The final panel is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absurdity of the premise. If the sun did explode, he won't need to pay out the bet because the Earth and everyone on it would be destroyed. But if it didn't explode, then he'll win $50. It also likely refers to a well-publicized bet that Nate Silver tried to make with Joe Scarborough regarding the outcome of the election:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 23 November 2012
Line 39:		Line 39:
	[[Category:Math]]		[[Category:Math]]
	[[Category:Statistics]]		[[Category:Statistics]]
		+	[[Category:Physics]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 23 November 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:
	{{comic discussion}}		{{comic discussion}}
	[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]		[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
		+	[[Category:Statistics]]
		+	[[Category:Math]]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 [[File:Nate Silver Tweet.png|.@JoeNBC: If you think it's a toss-up, let's bet. If Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do. Deal?|right]]
-The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_and_Knaves#Question_3 Knights and Knaves], where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''Labyrinth'', which is referenced in the text.
+The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights_and_Knaves#Question_3|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''Labyrinth'', which is referenced in the text.
 ==Transcript==