“an outstanding paper that covers the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox”…

“This is, in this revised version, an outstanding paper that covers the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox (JLP) in exceptional depth and that unravels the philosophical differences between different schools of inference with the help of the JLP. From the analysis of this paradox, the author convincingly elaborates the principles of Bayesian and severity-based inferences, and engages in a thorough review of the latter’s account of the JLP in Spanos (2013).” Anonymous

I have now received a second round of reviews of my paper, “On the Jeffreys-Lindleys paradox” (submitted to Philosophy of Science) and the reports are quite positive (or even extremely positive as in the above quote!). The requests for changes are directed to clarify points, improve the background coverage, and simplify my heavy style (e.g., cutting Proustian sentences). These requests were easily addressed (hopefully to the satisfaction of the reviewers) and, thanks to the week in Warwick, I have already sent the paper back to the journal, with high hopes for acceptance. The new version has also been arXived. I must add that some parts of the reviews sounded much better than my original prose and I was almost tempted to include them in the final version. Take for instance

“As a result, the reader obtains not only a better insight into what is at stake in the JLP, going beyond the results of Spanos (2013) and Sprenger (2013), but also a much better understanding of the epistemic function and mechanics of statistical tests. This is a major achievement given the philosophical controversies that have haunted the topic for decades. Recent insights from Bayesian statistics are integrated into the article and make sure that it is mathematically up to date, but the technical and foundational aspects of the paper are well-balanced.” Anonymous

3 Responses to ““an outstanding paper that covers the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox”…”

  1. While at O-Bayes, I got the news that the paper is now accepted. Just so unfortunate it also coincides with Dennis’ demise…

  2. Jean Louis FOULLEY Says:

    Thanks Christian for this enlightening view about the Jeffreys-Lindley-Bartlett paradox that makes a lot of people so uncomfortable.
    The point that has been put forward in favour of the BF and that I found important in practice is that it prevents from optional sampling for a foregone conclusion (eg sampling until rejecting the null) (see a recent paper by Sanborn & Hill).
    To some extent the approach of severity test is more or less similar as to handle the issue of hypothesis testing by evaluating probability statements on the posterior distribution of theta in relation to calibration of “effect size”.
    I have no doubt that your paper will stimulate our minds for a better understanding of both conceptual and practical aspects of hypothesis testing.
    Is there not a misprint at the top of page 2 for p(tn)?

  3. Don’t forget to cite Bartlett’s correction of Lindley’s original note (Lindley’s formulation does not satisfy dimensional analysis). See also my discussion in “Two Cheers for P-values”: http://www.google.lu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phil.vt.edu%2Fdmayo%2Fconference_2010%2FSenn%2520Two%2520Cheers%2520Paper.pdf&ei=5–eUrGbGOv07AayloCwCw&usg=AFQjCNFQJqrirBHM__n6U2mv-DH4m7UDvg&sig2=RCAK7uY0SVwD0y2pacdyrQ

    Stephen Senn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.