[R-sig-ME] Fwd: same old question - lme4 and p-values
dnadave at revolution-computing.com
Mon Apr 7 04:05:45 CEST 2008
> For all practical purposes, a CI is just the Bayesian credible
> interval that one gets with some suitable "non-informative prior".
> Why not then be specific about the prior, and go with the Bayesian
> credible interval? (There is an issue whether such a prior can
> always be found. Am right in judging this no practical consequence?)
What? Could you explain this a little more? There is nothing
Bayesian about a classical (i.e. not Bayesian credible set or highest
posterior density, or whatever terminology you prefer) CI. The
interpretation is completely different, and the assumptions used in
deriving the interval are also different. Even though the interval
created when using a noninformative prior is similar to a classical
CI, they are not the same entity.
Now, while i agree with the arguments about p-values and their
validity, there is one aspect missing from this discussion. When
creating a general use package like lme4, we are trying to create
software that enables statisticians and researchers to perform the
statistical analyses they need and interpret the results in ways that
HELP them get published. While I admire Doug for "drawing a line in
the sand" in regard to the use of p-values in published research, this
is counter to HELPING the researcher publish their results. There has
to be a better way to further your point in the community than FORCING
your point upon them. Education of the next generation of researchers
and journal editors is admittedly slow, but a much more community
friendly way of getting your point used in practice.
Just my $0.02...
David Henderson, Ph.D.
Director of Community
1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250
DNADave at Revolution-Computing.Com
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models