"Competent statisticians will be front line troops in our war for survival-but how do we get them? I think there is now a wide readiness to agree that what we want are neither mere theorem provers nor mere users of a cookbook. A proper balance of theory and practice is needed and, most important, statisticians must learn how to be good scientists; a talent which has to be acquired by experience and example." (George E P Box, "Science and Statistics", Journal of the American Statistical Association 71, 1976)
"When the statistician looks at the outside world, he cannot, for example, rely on finding errors that are independently and identically distributed in approximately normal distributions. In particular, most economic and business data are collected serially and can be expected, therefore, to be heavily serially dependent. So is much of the data collected from the automatic instruments which are becoming so common in laboratories these days. Analysis of such data, using procedures such as standard regression analysis which assume independence, can lead to gross error. Furthermore, the possibility of contamination of the error distribution by outliers is always present and has recently received much attention. More generally, real data sets, especially if they are long, usually show inhomogeneity in the mean, the variance, or both, and it is not always possible to randomize." (George E P Box, "Some Problems of Statistics and Everyday Life", Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74 (365), 1979)
"Science usually amounts to a lot more than blind trial and error. Good statistics consists of much more than just significance tests; there are more sophisticated tools available for the analysis of results, such as confidence statements, multiple comparisons, and Bayesian analysis, to drop a few names. However, not all scientists are good statisticians, or want to be, and not all people who are called scientists by the media deserve to be so described."
"[In statistics] you have the fact that the concepts are not very clean. The idea of probability, of randomness, is not a clean mathematical idea. You cannot produce random numbers mathematically. They can only be produced by things like tossing dice or spinning a roulette wheel. With a formula, any formula, the number you get would be predictable and therefore not random. So as a statistician you have to rely on some conception of a world where things happen in some way at random, a conception which mathematicians don’t have." (Lucien LeCam, [interview] 1988)
"A little thought reveals a fact widely understood among statisticians: The null hypothesis, taken literally (and that’s the only way you can take it in formal hypothesis testing), is always false in the real world. [...] If it is false, even to a tiny degree, it must be the case that a large enough sample will produce a significant result and lead to its rejection. So if the null hypothesis is always false, what’s the big deal about rejecting it?" (Jacob Cohen, "Things I Have Learned (So Far)", American Psychologist, 1990)
"Statistics is a very powerful and persuasive mathematical tool. People put a lot of faith in printed numbers. It seems when a situation is described by assigning it a numerical value, the validity of the report increases in the mind of the viewer. It is the statistician's obligation to be aware that data in the eyes of the uninformed or poor data in the eyes of the naive viewer can be as deceptive as any falsehoods." (Theoni Pappas, "More Joy of Mathematics: Exploring mathematical insights & concepts", 1991)
"When an analyst selects the wrong tool, this is a misuse which usually leads to invalid conclusions. Incorrect use of even a tool as simple as the mean can lead to serious misuses. […] But all statisticians know that more complex tools do not guarantee an analysis free of misuses. Vigilance is required on every statistical level."
No comments:
Post a Comment