David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 70 (2):253-270 (2009)
A pure significance test would check the agreement of a statistical model with the observed data even when no alternative model was available. The paper proposes the use of a modified p -value to make such a test. The model will be rejected if something surprising is observed. It is shown that the relation between this measure of surprise and the surprise indices of Weaver and Good is similar to the relationship between a p -value, a corresponding odds-ratio, and a logit or log-odds statistic. The s -value is always larger than the corresponding p -value, and is not uniformly distributed. Difficulties with the whole approach are discussed
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Ontology Ethics Logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Harold Jeffreys (1940). Theory of Probability. Journal of Philosophy 37 (19):524-528.
Alonzo Church (1940). On the Concept of a Random Sequence. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):71-72.
J. V. Howard (1975). Computable Explanations. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 21 (1):215-224.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ken Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Davis Baird (1984). Tests of Significance Violate the Rule of Implication. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:81 - 92.
Franz Huber (2008). Milne's Argument for the Log‐Ratio Measure. Philosophy of Science 75 (4):413-420.
Joseph F. Hanna (1966). A New Approach to the Formulation and Testing of Learning Models. Synthese 16 (3-4):344 - 380.
G. William Moore, Grover M. Hutchins & Robert E. Miller (1986). A New Paradigm for Hypothesis Testing in Medicine, with Examination of the Neyman Pearson Condition. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
Emiliano Lorini & Cristiano Castelfranchi (2007). The Cognitive Structure of Surprise: Looking for Basic Principles. Topoi 26 (1):133-149.
Siu L. Chow (1998). The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure is Still Warranted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):228-235.
Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses (1986). Taken by Surprise: The Paradox of the Surprise Test Revisited. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (3):281 - 304.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads68 ( #62,123 of 1,796,439 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #347,915 of 1,796,439 )
How can I increase my downloads?