.@St_Rev Right, that’s the same critique I would make. For *any* statistical approach to apply, you have to *already* understand situation.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness So it might be worth explicitly going to the root, the base axioms, and saying 'but look, you can't *do* this. for example...'1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Yes, that's what I mean. Real situations where the axiomatic approach leads you astray from the first step.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Yeah, I'm not the person to do it, I'm an algebraist. My interest in statistics is strictly amateur.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness He has the semidelusional confidence that seems to be associated with successful, dominant males. Creepy but not Bayes' fault.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Downside vs. upside. e.g. some of the Metamed group are extremely smart and ambitious, might do great things.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.