Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman-Pearson Philosophy of Induction.

Despite the widespread use of key concepts of the Neyman-Pearson (N-P) statistical paradigm-type I and II errors, significance levels, power, confidence levels-they have been the subject of philosophical controversy and debate for over 60 years. Both current and long-standing problems of N-P tests s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 57; no. 2; pp. 323 - 358
Main Authors: Mayo, Deborah G., Spanos, Aris
Format: Article
Published: University of Chicago Press Jun2006
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=21810242&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 21810242
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00070882
        BPL
      jtl: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00070882
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2006
      vid: 57
      iid: 2
      pid: 415
      pub: University of Chicago Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        21810242
        10.1093/bjps/axl003
      ppf: 323
      ppct: 35
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman-Pearson Philosophy of Induction.
      aug:
        au:
          Mayo, Deborah G.
          Spanos, Aris
        affil: Virginia Tech, Department of Philosophy, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
      su:
        Error
        Hypothesis
        Inference (Logic)
        Reasoning
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Error
          Hypothesis
          Inference (Logic)
          Reasoning
          Philosophy
      ab: Despite the widespread use of key concepts of the Neyman-Pearson (N-P) statistical paradigm-type I and II errors, significance levels, power, confidence levels-they have been the subject of philosophical controversy and debate for over 60 years. Both current and long-standing problems of N-P tests stem from unclarity and confusion, even among N-P adherents, as to how a test's (pre-data) error probabilities are to be used for (post-data) inductive inference as opposed to inductive behavior. We argue that the relevance of error probabilities is to ensure that only statistical hypotheses that have passed severe or probative tests are inferred from the data. The severity criterion supplies a meta-statistical principle for evaluating proposed statistical inferences, avoiding classic fallacies from tests that are overly sensitive, as well as those not sensitive enough to particular errors and discrepancies.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2006
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N