Skip to main content
edited title
Link
amoeba
  • 107.2k
  • 36
  • 321
  • 346

Is athe frequentist framework more appropriate than the Bayesian one, according to PopperPopper's theory?

Tweeted twitter.com/StackStats/status/860570587273547777
typo correction and integration
Source Link

According to Karl Popper, only falsifiable hypothesishypotheses are truly scientific. (quoting Wikipedia):

no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

In keeping with thisthese theoretical premises, which statistical framework is more appropriate, the frequentist or the Bayesian?

According to Karl Popper, only falsifiable hypothesis are truly scientific.

In keeping with this theoretical premises, which statistical framework is more appropriate, the frequentist or the Bayesian?

According to Karl Popper, only falsifiable hypotheses are truly scientific (quoting Wikipedia):

no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

In keeping with these theoretical premises, which statistical framework is more appropriate, the frequentist or the Bayesian?

Source Link

Is a frequentist framework more appropriate according to Popper theory?

According to Karl Popper, only falsifiable hypothesis are truly scientific.

In keeping with this theoretical premises, which statistical framework is more appropriate, the frequentist or the Bayesian?