They should remove "modern" from the title, because who the hell uses the "R programming language" these days anymore?
Most people in bioinformatics.
Introduction to Modern Statistics
51–60 of 138 posts
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here: https://www.openintro.org/book/ims/
This is the first version, not the 2nd?
Hmmm ... must be because the 2nd edition is still in progress. Best option might be to follow the immortal words of Obiwan Kenobi and "use the source": https://github.com/OpenIntroStat/ims
Otherwise you can try building a PDF from the very similar Data 8 book[1] using [2]
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#53As much as I appreciate and love all pedagogical endeavours in the field, especially in the form of open texts, I really, really, really dislike this overall approach to teaching introductory statistics.
I'm hoping to see, over time, a shift away from ad-hoc null hypothesis testing in favour of linear models (yes, in introductory courses, from the start-- see link below) and Bayesian-by-default approaches.
https://lindeloev.github.io/tests-as-linear/#:~:text=Most%20....
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#54One of my favourite books on statistics and probability is "Regression and Other Stories", by Andrew Gelman, Jennifer Hill and Aki Vehtari. You can access the book for free here: https://users.aalto.fi/~ave/ROS.pdf
+1, this is a great textbook, and not just for social sciences as the second header would suggest.
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I probably should have been more clear. I didn't say hypothesis testing, I said NHST (the binary null/alt hypothesis approach) - which is an approach to hypothesis testing particularly prevelant in certain disciplines such as Psychology. And in that context, there is a lot of agreement that this approach is fundamentally flawed and outdated. if you are interested, I can provide references when I get to the office. Bu…
For those following along at home Gigerenzer is, I think, "Mindless Statistics"[1] and Cummings is "The New Statistics"[2]. [1]: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2101336/component/file_2... [2]: Sample at https://tandfbis.s3.amazonaws.com/rt-media/pp/common/sample-...
Yes, those are appropriate (although Gigerenzer and Cummings both have other relevant publications on the topic).
As for a undergraduate text that 'teaches the difference', you can look at 'An Introduction to Statistics' by Carlson & Winquist.
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#56As much as I appreciate and love all pedagogical endeavours in the field, especially in the form of open texts, I really, really, really dislike this overall approach to teaching introductory statistics. I'm hoping to see, over time, a shift away from ad-hoc null hypothesis testing in favour of linear models (yes, in introductory courses, from the start-- see link below) and Bayesian-by-default approaches. https://li…
I am partway through McElreath's "Statistical Rethinking" and I fully agree with this.
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#57They should remove "modern" from the title, because who the hell uses the "R programming language" these days anymore?
Probably most people who do statistics.
R sucks as a language but it excels at that specific application, just because of its tremendous ecosystem (putting even python to shame in some niche areas).
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#58As much as I appreciate and love all pedagogical endeavours in the field, especially in the form of open texts, I really, really, really dislike this overall approach to teaching introductory statistics. I'm hoping to see, over time, a shift away from ad-hoc null hypothesis testing in favour of linear models (yes, in introductory courses, from the start-- see link below) and Bayesian-by-default approaches. https://li…
I am partway through McElreath's "Statistical Rethinking" and I fully agree with this.
That's a great textbook!
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ironic that this ... rant? ... is basically unreadable without knowledge of basic statistical methods. How do you teach any of this to someone who hasn't already taken introductory statistics? How do you learn anything if you first have to learn the myriad ways something you don't even have a basic working knowledge of can fail before you learn it?
The comment is addressed to the informed reader who is the only one with a hope of being persuaded on this point. To teach this, from scratch, I think is fairly easy -- but there's few with any incentive to do it. Many in academia wouldnt know how, and if they did, would discover that much of their research can be shown a priori to not be worthwhile (rather than after a decade of 'debate'). All you really need is to…
“ that much of their research can be shown a priori to not be worthwhile”
Bingo. Cargo cult stats all the way down. It’s not just personal interest, it’s the entire field, it’s their colleagues, mentors, and students. Good luck getting somebody to see the light when not just their own income depends on not seeing it, their whole world depends on the “stat recipes” handed down from granny.
Re: Introduction to Modern Statistics
#60Is there a "pre-statistics" book that teaches the thinking skills and concepts needed to understand statistics?
This book seems to start where you need it to start. You don't need much beyond basic calculus. Most suffer from some mental block they got installed at a young age akin those that say "I'm bad at math" because their teacher sucked. Dive in and you won't regret it.
I have been a math teacher and although I can't guarantee that I didn't suck, I can say that most of kids don't develop this attitude because of teachers, but because of their parents. "My mum says that she sucked at math/music/whatever as well, so do I!" is far too common. As a teacher I just didn't have resources to influence this attitude either.