1
$\begingroup$

Everything I read about confidence intervals warns against the following interpretation: If I construct a 95% confidence interval (a,b) for some parameter p, it is incorrect to say that the probability that p is in (a,b) is .95.

Mathematically, I totally get it. a, b, and p are constants, so the probability is either 1 or 0.

However, philosophically, I don't see the problem with constructing an interval based on a sample and saying that the probability that your interval contains the unknown parameter is .95 since probability is, after all, a consequence of uncertainty in the face of imperfect information.

For example, before I flip a coin, there is a 50% chance it lands on heads. Suppose I flip the coin but I don't look at the outcome. Is it wrong to say that the probability that the coin is currently heads up is 50%, even though it's and 'unknown constant?'

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is nothing wrong, philosophically, "with constructing an interval based on a sample and saying that the probability that your interval contains the unknown parameter is .95". However, that is not what a frequentist confidence interval is. If you want to construct such an interval, a Bayesian credible interval would be more appropriate,. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2019 at 19:58

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

This issue for interpreting a confidence interval in that manner is more that the frequentist statistical theory says the true parameter value is constant so a randomly generated interval will either contain or exclude that fixed parameter value (slightly different look than yours).

If you want to make that kind of probability statement, a Bayesian credible interval will allow for it because it allows parameters to be random variables and via the incorporation of prior information and current information you can make a probability statement about an interval containing a parameter which is a random variable (contrary to a fixed value of a parameter).

The coin question depends on the definition of probability for whoever you ask.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For a sample as opposed to a population, the mean and the confidence interval are estimates. Consequently, to obtain a prediction interval as opposed to a confidence interval, you would need to take account of the potential errors in the calculation of the mean and the variance. This reference provides a more complete explanation. In the specific case of tossing a coin, it would be reasonable to presume that the probability of getting an head or a tail is equal, apart from the incredibly rare case where it lands and stays on its edge.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.