Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T16:25:10.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Rate of Incoherence Applied to Fixed-Level Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mark J. Schervish ,
Teddy Seidenfeld  and
Joseph B. Kadane
Joseph B. Kadane*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Mark J. Schervish and Joseph B. Kadane are Professor, Department of Statistics and Teddy Seidenfeld is Professor, Departments of Statistics and Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has long been known that the practice of testing all hypotheses at the same level (such as 0.05), regardless of the distribution of the data, is not consistent with Bayesian expected utility maximization. According to de Finetti's “Dutch Book” argument, procedures that are not consistent with expected utility maximization are incoherent and they lead to gambles that are sure to lose no matter what happens. In this paper, we use a method to measure the rate at which incoherent procedures are sure to lose, so that we can distinguish slightly incoherent procedures from grossly incoherent ones. We present an analysis of testing a simple hypothesis against a simple alternative as a case-study of how the method can work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue S3 , September 2002 , pp. S248 - S264
Copyright
Copyright © The 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

Cox, D. R. (1958), “Some Problems Connected with Statisitical Inference”, Some Problems Connected with Statisitical Inference 29:357–363.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1974), Theory of Probability, volume 1. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Freedman, D. A., and Purves, R. A. (1969), “Bayes' Method for Bookies”, Bayes' Method for Bookies 40:1177–1186.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., and Wolfson, L. (1998), “Experiences in Elicitation”, (with comments), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. D (The Statistician) 47:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E. (1958), “Significance Level and Power”, Significance Level and Power 29:1167–1176.Google Scholar
Lindley, D. (1972), Bayesian Statistics A Review. Philadelphia: SIAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nau, R. F. (1989), “Decision Analysis with Indeterminate or Incoherent Probabilities”, Decision Analysis with Indeterminate or Incoherent Probabilities 19:375–403.Google Scholar
Nau, R. F. (1992), “Indeterminate Probabilities on Finite Sets”, Indeterminate Probabilities on Finite Sets 20:1737–1767.Google Scholar
Schervish, M. J. (1995), Theory of Statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schervish, M. J., Seidenfeld, T., and Kadane, J. B. (1997), “Two Measures of Incoherence: How Not to Gamble if You Must,” Technical Report 660, Carnegie Mellon University, Statistics.Google Scholar
Schervish, M. J., Seidenfeld, T., and Kadane, J. B. (1999), “How Incoherent is Fixed-Level Testing,” Technical Report 703, Carnegie Mellon University, Statistics.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M. J., and Kadane, J. B. (1990), “Decisions without Ordering”, in W. Sieg, ed. Acting and Reflecting, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1955), “Coherence and the Axioms of Probability”, Coherence and the Axioms of Probability 20:1–28.Google Scholar
Walley, P. (1991), Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar