U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
1/Curious me took a glimpse at Michael Nielsen's blog, which triggered Gelman's discussion of Simpson's paradox http://michaelnielsen.org/reinventing_explanation/index.html …. Michael is blunt: "[The paradox] shows that some of our ingrained intuitions about statistics are not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong." Yet
2/ Yet 90% of living statisticians still believe it can be "resolved" by re-visualizing data. My esteemed discussants on The American Statistician, https://ucla.in/2Jfl2VS (eg, Xiao-Li Meng) wouldn't even utter the word "causation". And it is 2020, and Statisticians get angry
3/3 when I remind them of the date, and their students still can't cope with a paradox that has haunted statistics for the past 120 years. Pearl unfairly bashes statistics, they say. #Bookofwhy
I wonder what @yudapearl would say about NPB to deal with Simpson’s Paradox, like herehttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/modeling-contextdependent-latent-effect-heterogeneity/B7B0AF067DF97A1A8F0B50646EF64F24 …
I would say: It is impossible to "deal with Simpson's Paradox" without a causal model, and it is impossible to specify a causal model in the language of probability distributions, however intricate. See https://ucla.in/2Jfl2VS
which you've cited but not taken seriously.#Bookofwhy
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
