Bob and Carl are at it again. This time theyre arguing about significance testing. Carl points out,
Question:
Bob and Carl are at it again. This time they’re arguing about significance testing. Carl points out, “Classical frequentist significance testing offers an objective alternative to Bayesian confirmation theory.” Bob responds, “But it really doesn’t! Significance testing doesn’t allow us to make any judgements about degrees of confirmation. Of course under plausible conditions, significance testing offers a useful shortcut for full Bayesian updating.”
Explain what’s going on in this exchange. In particular:
(i) Explain the point that Carl is trying to make.
(ii) Explain the first point that Bob is trying to make.
(iii) What are the “plausible conditions” that Bob is talking about? How does the Bayesian framework claim to annex significance testing? (Be specific.)
Federal Taxation 2016 Comprehensive
ISBN: 9780134104379
29th edition
Authors: Thomas R. Pope, Timothy J. Rupert, Kenneth E. Anderson