
TL;DR
This paper critically examines the concept of measuring scientific evidence, arguing that common statistics do not conform to proper measurement scales and exploring the idea of an absolute zero point for evidence.
Contribution
It introduces a representational measurement perspective to evaluate evidence statistics and challenges the notion of an absolute zero evidence point.
Findings
Common evidence statistics do not conform to legitimate measurement scales
The concept of absolute zero evidence differs from intuitive expectations
A new perspective on evidence measurement scales is proposed
Abstract
Statistical analysis is often used to evaluate the evidence for or against scientific hypotheses, and various statistics (e.g., p-values, likelihood ratios, Bayes factors) are interpreted as measures of evidence strength. Here I consider evidence measurement from the point of view of representational measurement theory, and argue that familiar evidence statistics do not conform to any legitimate measurement scale type. I then consider the notion of an absolute scale for evidence measurement, in a sense to be defined, focusing particularly on the notion of absolute 0 evidence, which turns out to be something other than what one might have expected.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and History of Science
