TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Randall Munroe Responds to Gelman's Criticism of XKCD

121 点作者 aaronjg超过 12 年前

8 条评论

antirez超过 12 年前
&#62; A sincere thank you for the gentle corrections; I’ve taken them to heart, and you can be confident I will avoid such mischaracterizations in the future!<p>Why Randall should almost apologize for a comic is a mystery to me.
评论 #4770821 未加载
评论 #4770897 未加载
评论 #4771466 未加载
kenferry超过 12 年前
Oh! I didn't realize this was Gelman's blog. He is, at least, a dude who seriously knows what he's talking about. <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gelman" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gelman</a>
评论 #4771319 未加载
jrockway超过 12 年前
His name is spelled "Munroe", not "Monroe". Interestingly, the correct spelling of his name is literally the first thing you see when you click that link.
gwern超过 12 年前
LW discussion of the comic: <a href="http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/fe5/xkcd_frequentist_vs_bayesians/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/fe5/xkcd_frequentist_vs...</a>
woah超过 12 年前
Wait, hold on. Isn't the joke that the Bayesian statistician knows that paying back 50 dollars is meaningless if the sun exploded and we're all going to die? If we live, he gets 50 dollars. That's what I got out of it.
hkmurakami超过 12 年前
<i>&#62;More importantly, now that both you and perhaps Scott Adams have commented on my blog, I am very happy. If only I could think of some way of getting Berke Breathed to comment here, I think I could just retire!</i><p>Could someone point me to the "perhaps Scott Adams" comment? (is it in response to another blog entry?)
评论 #4770951 未加载
评论 #4771877 未加载
wisty超过 12 年前
AFAIK, the breakdown is this:<p>Frequentist is a special case of Bayesian. The Frequentists have much more mature tools, because they've been working on them since Gauss's day. Bayesians (especially less experienced ones) may claim that that Frequentists are old school, outdated, and don't teach undergrads the new Bayesian way of doing things.<p>Bayesian methods are more flexible and general, but are often slow (computationally), and can be too flexible. A Bayesian can prove anything. Frequentists have trouble eliminating some biases (because their tools aren't as flexible), but also have trouble purposely (or subconsciously) biasing their results.<p>I'm not going into the specifics of the methods here, just the source of their disagreements.
评论 #4771813 未加载
评论 #4771683 未加载
bashzor超过 12 年前
I love this line.<p><i>The truth is, I genuinely didn’t realize Frequentists and Bayesians were actual camps of people—all of whom are now emailing me.</i>
评论 #4772073 未加载
评论 #4772217 未加载
评论 #4774843 未加载
评论 #4771472 未加载