Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt and Hans-Hermann Dubben are writing books and papers on this problem (most medical research is wrong, see “Is the pope an alien?” Nature 381: 730, 1996) for decades. I’ve even got a popular science book on probability by them. Sadly most stuff is only available in German.
Curiously, Beck-Bornholdt and Dubben seem (at least, in the two papers of theirs you cited) unaware of the Bayesian solution to the problem they pose. In fact, in “Potential pitfalls...”, the abstract concludes with “more care in the use of p-values in analysis and interpretation of clinical data is required”, which is a bit like saying that the patient bled to death, so more care in the use of blood-letting is required.
That may just reflect the mid-1990s, though. “Is the Pope an alien?” drew these replies in Nature (vol.382 p.480), only one of which gives the Bayesian solution, and adds that “It is a shame that Bayesian methods are not part of all introductory statistics classes.” I don’t know if they are now.
(BTW, you need to backslash the parentheses in your DOI URL to make it work with markdown.)
“It is a shame that Bayesian methods are not part of all introductory statistics classes.” I don’t know if they are now.
I’m a grad student/TA in the statistics department at Iowa State University. Bayes doesn’t make it into any of our intro classes outside of maybe introducing Bayes’ theorem… but I doubt it. It also doesn’t make it into our stat classes for non-major grad students. Some non-stat major grad students take master’s level stat courses instead. They introduce some Bayesian material depending on the prof, but not much. There is also a master’s level course in Bayesian methods, and new PhD level Bayesian courses in both methods and theory.
Relevant info: our dept. is in the top 10 in the US and so relatively typical, but it is also known for being a bastion of frequentism. Bayesians are making inroads in the department though, but intro classes at Duke, for example, might be much more Bayesian.
Yes, I don’t know if it is one (I just hope it is :-). But in one of the books by Beck-Bornholdt and Dubben it is interpreted as a mock or at least a good example of how you can prove everything you like if you misuse statistics or your knowledge of probability is sufficiently crippled.
I didn’t see any evidence on the page, either in the editorial or customer reviews, that this was intended as a “mock”. It looks like a seriously intended book of pseudo-science from the Amazon page.
It is a shame that Bayesian methods are not part of all introductory statistics classes. In this case, Bayesian methods quickly reassure us that the Pope is (probably) not an alien.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, 2005
Potential pitfalls in the use of p-values and in interpretation of significance levels: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(94)90072-8, 1994
Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt and Hans-Hermann Dubben are writing books and papers on this problem (most medical research is wrong, see “Is the pope an alien?” Nature 381: 730, 1996) for decades. I’ve even got a popular science book on probability by them. Sadly most stuff is only available in German.
Curiously, Beck-Bornholdt and Dubben seem (at least, in the two papers of theirs you cited) unaware of the Bayesian solution to the problem they pose. In fact, in “Potential pitfalls...”, the abstract concludes with “more care in the use of p-values in analysis and interpretation of clinical data is required”, which is a bit like saying that the patient bled to death, so more care in the use of blood-letting is required.
That may just reflect the mid-1990s, though. “Is the Pope an alien?” drew these replies in Nature (vol.382 p.480), only one of which gives the Bayesian solution, and adds that “It is a shame that Bayesian methods are not part of all introductory statistics classes.” I don’t know if they are now.
(BTW, you need to backslash the parentheses in your DOI URL to make it work with markdown.)
I’m a grad student/TA in the statistics department at Iowa State University. Bayes doesn’t make it into any of our intro classes outside of maybe introducing Bayes’ theorem… but I doubt it. It also doesn’t make it into our stat classes for non-major grad students. Some non-stat major grad students take master’s level stat courses instead. They introduce some Bayesian material depending on the prof, but not much. There is also a master’s level course in Bayesian methods, and new PhD level Bayesian courses in both methods and theory.
Relevant info: our dept. is in the top 10 in the US and so relatively typical, but it is also known for being a bastion of frequentism. Bayesians are making inroads in the department though, but intro classes at Duke, for example, might be much more Bayesian.
Working link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140\(94\)90072-8
Someone even wrote a whole book that demonstrates the misuse and failure in the use of probability: The Astrology File: Scientific Proof of the Link Between Star Signs and Human Behavior
Hmmm. The customer reviews seem to suggest that it wasn’t interpreted as “a mock”.
I was particularly amused by the list of what customers eventually purchased after looking at the amazon page for this book:
Yes, I don’t know if it is one (I just hope it is :-). But in one of the books by Beck-Bornholdt and Dubben it is interpreted as a mock or at least a good example of how you can prove everything you like if you misuse statistics or your knowledge of probability is sufficiently crippled.
I didn’t see any evidence on the page, either in the editorial or customer reviews, that this was intended as a “mock”. It looks like a seriously intended book of pseudo-science from the Amazon page.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/pope.html