[R-sig-eco] Are likelihood approaches frequentist?
Rubén Roa-Ureta
rroa at udec.cl
Mon Sep 29 22:48:48 CEST 2008
Dave Hewitt wrote:
> As Ben pointed out, the key difference between pure likelihood approaches and
> frequentist approaches is the addition of a layer of "significance"
> assessment based on the idea of repeated experimentation. (The term
> "frequentist" has been stretched in a variety of directions now, perhaps due
> to lazy writing, so sometimes it is unclear what's included under the
> umbrella.)
>
>
I think Donald Rubin gave the right term: sampling-distribution
inference, because it is an inference based on inspection of the sample
space. Frequentist is not precise because a likelihoodist can subscribe
to a strictly frequentist view of probabilities (e.g. Edwards) but still
think that probabilities are not the correct tool for inferential
statements.
> In his 2001 book "In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference
> Using Likelihood", Yudi Pawitan refers to pure likelihood inference as
> "Fisher's third way", a compromise between frequentist and Bayesian
> approaches that began with Fisher himself. Inference based strictly on the
> likelihood function is not probabilistic, so would not conform to either of
> these two other paradigms.
>
It seems to me that in the area of inference, Fisher had three
offspring: significance tests/confidence intervals, direct-likelihood
and fiducial inference. W.r.t. the first child he was a bit embarrassed.
He wrote in his 1959 book "Objection has sometimes been made that the
method of calculating Confidence Limits by setting an assigned value
such as 1% on the frequency of observing [the test statistic] or less
[...] is unrealistic in treating the values less than [the test
statistic] which have not been observed , in exactly the same manner as
the value of the [the test statistic] which is the one that has been
observed. This feature is indeed not very defensible, save as an
approximation" (p. 68). His favorite child appeared to be fiducial
inference, but not many people understood this. It looks like his
favorite was ignored, while the one he was a bit embarrassed about
prospered. But we have to see what happens with the other child,
direct-likelihood, maybe it prevails at the end of the day.
[snip]
Rubén
More information about the R-sig-ecology
mailing list