Andrew Gelman - Bayes, statistics, and reproducibility (Rutgers, Foundations of Probability)

[@MadaxeMunkeee]

His explanation of why statistics feels arbitrary to mathematicians in the first minute is SO spot on

[@fredxu9826]

it is hard (sometimes impossible )to establish causal relationship purely from a statistical model. Science, especially mathematics and physics, build causal models.

[@AT-sd2gh]

Yes, that was very good. And it was also pretty much the only "useful" thing I got from the whole talk. I think even wise experts need constraints and structure to do and say meaningful things. We all have a tendency to bloviate, apparently even the intelligent ones among us.

[@ikennaonyekwelu5459]

No wonder, his knowledge of Bayesian stat could be traced to Francis Galton. Advisor tree: Francis Galton advised Karl Pearson, Karl Pearson advised John Wishart, John Wishart advised William Cochran, William Cochrane advised Donald Rubin, Donald Rubin advised Andrew Gelman.

[@TheFartoholic]

What happened at 15:06? Seems like everyone in that room got a sample of his posterior

[@swavekbu4959]

Everything he's talking about are signs of a mature scholar, where he's realizing that the most fundamental issues are not what's "in the box," but what's "outside" of it. He's graduated from statistics to the philosophy of statistics.

[@whoopspat11]

Great video! Thanks for posting!

[@chaoxu7360]

Great video, although I don't understand how come a Foundations of Probability seminar has come to have half of its audience not knowing what sigma/sqrt(n) is.

[@asianfrenzy666]

Did he fart at 15:06 and then excuse himself?

[@alejandrarodriguezsanchez6667]

i hope not, wow!

[@matthewtrevino525]

Haha poor guy.

[@BabaYaraMUFC]

Sounds like it

[@donfox1036]

He doesn’t necessarily show Bayesian method are incoherent but does present a lot of evidence that a talk can be incoherent.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

@@donfox1036 no