professor of philosophy of science, logic, experiment, statistical inference; now an independent philosopher & stock trader; split time in NYC & Va (and London)
Justice demands that every individual or institution, that funded, conducted, or enabled high-risk virus research in Wuhan, along with the scientists who published those misleading papers while concealing their conflicts of interest, plus the journals that refuse to retract them, be held fully accountable.
Anthony Fauci and his advisor may have been at the center of that ecosystem, but they were not alone. Many others have their fingerprints on it: researchers, intermediaries, journals, and gatekeepers who enabled the work and enforced their preferred narrative.
Accountability should extend across the board. It shouldn’t stop at the surface. That means confronting and dismantling the network behind it.
The public has every right to expect that.
Some Bayesians refuse to grant frequentists the use of any term. Frequentist error probabilities are hypothetical claims associated with methods, (e.g., the prob test T would yield d(X) > d(x) computed under h'). If they were called X-probs, some Bayesians would still say, they're not X-probs, only posteriors are. Bayesians should allow frequentists to define their terms, reject their use if you don't like them, but don't insist they must be posteriors, when they're not.
@f2harrell@AprileBernardi@PavlosMsaouel@elmir1omerovic@StatModeling Degree of belief in H given e is what Bayes gives--where's the error prob? There is none. An error prob is attached to a method for reaching error prone claims based on data. It tells us how often it does so erroneously.
I wouldn't call you this if you excessively flatter me for getting this silly word in just 2 rounds, since it was kind of surprising, little froggy. Wordle 1,764 2/6
⬜⬜🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩