Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T10:44:39.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Inference and Randomization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Isaac Levi
Isaac Levi*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

R.A. Fisher began defending the use of randomized assignments of treatments to plots in agricultural field experiments in 1926 (Fisher 1926). His claims on behalf of randomization were challenged by many other statisticians including his friend and colleague W.S. Gosset, the celebrated “Student” (Gosset 1937). After Gosset's death, Fisher's insistence upon the critical importance of randomization to good experimental design became a cornerstone of methodological orthodoxy, a status it has continued to enjoy until recent years. Even so, an undercurrent of resistance to some of the more excessive claims on behalf of randomization has continued to influence thoughtful statisticians and methodologists.

Fisher's rationale for. randomization was grounded on the need to control or eliminate systematic error or bias. For example, the average yield of wheat on plots treated with one kind of fertilizer may be compared with the average yield of wheat of the same variety on plots treated with another kind of fertilizer.

Type
Part XI. Randomization in Statistical Inference and Experimental Design
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 447 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaitin, G. (1969). “On the Length of Programs for Computing Finite Binary Sequences.” Journal of the Association of Computing Machinery 16: 145-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1970). Teorla delle probability. Volume I. Torino: G. Einaudi. (As reprinted as Theory of Probability, Volume 1, (trans.) Machi, A. and Smith, A.. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1926). “The Arrangement of Field Experiments.” Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain 33: 503-513.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1959a). Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference. 2nd ed. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1959b). “Mathematical Probability in the Natural Sciences.” Teohnometrics 1: 21-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gösset, W.S. (1937). “Comparison Between Balanced and Random Arrangements in Field Plots.” Biometrika 29: 363-379.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1967). “Possibility.” The Philosophical Review 75: 143-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E.T. (1968). “Prior Probability.” IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC-4: 227-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. (1963). “On Tables of Random Numbers.” Sankhyā; A 25: 369-376.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H.E. (1963). Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middle town, Conn.: Wesleyan.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1980). The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1981). “Direct Inference and Confirmational Conditionalization.” Philosophy of Science 48: 532-552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. (1982). “Replies.” In Kyburg, Henry E. Jr.. and Leyi, Isaac. (Profiles, Volume 3.) Edited by Bogdan, R.J.. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 293-305.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S. (1883). “A Theory of Probable Inference.” In Studies in Logic. Edited by Peirce, C.S.. Boston: Little Brown and Co. Pages 126-181. (As reprinted in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volume 2. (eds.) Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. Paragraphs 694-724.)Google Scholar
Rubin, D.B. (1978). “Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization.” The Annals of Statistics 6: 34-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenfeld, T.S. (1982). “Levi on the Dogma of Randomization in Experiments.” In Henry E. Kyburg. Jr. and Isaac Leyi. (Profiles, Volume 3.) Edited by Bogdan, R.J.. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 263-291.Google Scholar
G.U., Yule and Kendall, M.G. (1950). Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. 14th ed. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar