My Statistics is Better than Yours
Simon Benha\"iem

TL;DR
This paper argues for a context-dependent approach to statistical methods, emphasizing that no single framework is universally best, and advocates aligning statistical choices with research context and field-specific value judgments.
Contribution
It introduces a context-dependent perspective on statistical norms, integrating decision theory and addressing limitations of Bayesianism and Frequentism.
Findings
Bayesian and Frequentist methods are context-dependent and not universally superior.
Operational objectivity aligns statistical choices with research context.
Limitations of Bayesianism are highlighted through the Ellsberg paradox.
Abstract
Statistical schools-such as Bayesianism and Frequentism-are often presented as competing frameworks, each claiming technical rigour and superiority. Frequentism emphasizes objective inferences through repeated sampling, while Bayesianism incorporates prior beliefs and updates them with new evidence. Despite their strengths, neither school proves universally applicable, and the pursuit of a single "correct" statistical framework is ultimately misguided. Instead, this essay advocates for a context-dependent approach to statistical norms, drawing on Douglas (2004)'s concept of "operational objectivity". The idea is that by aligning the context of the research question with the value judgments inherent to its field, a certain statistical paradigm is warranted. This essay explores the decision-theoretic foundations of Bayesianism, examines its descriptive limitations as highlighted by the…
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
TopicsStatistics Education and Methodologies · Data Analysis with R
