Les bookmarks de Clem
2386 shaares
487 results
tagged
Divers
Intéressant. Le statisticien est interviewé sur le plantage des sondages pré-élections en GB, et on lui pose une question de sociologie (les sondages influent-ils sur le vote des gens), il ne sait pas répondre, s'embrouille, patauge et essaie de revenir dans son domaine de compétence. Après coup, il réfléchit et écrit cet article. Il note que dans ce type d'interview, il y a un patron général: "The common factor is this: the interviewer wants to turn the discussion either to:
* the effect the numbers have on people, or
* why people affect the numbers.
I cannot criticise them - it is entirely understandable that they are interested in the human story around the stats, and it probably reflects what the audience would ask. But all this is generally outside the expertise of the statistician. It doesn’t seem fair: astronomers don't expect to be asked about the effect their discoveries might have on people. But we statisticians clearly have to be ready."
Deux stratégies alors: (i) to have done your homework and spent some time examining the human context of the numbers, and at least be ready to summarise what social scientists have said about people’s behaviour. (...) (ii) to not only be ready for the question that you are not qualified to answer, but to positively welcome it. It gives a chance to explain that (to parody an old cliché) science means not having to say you know. It is OK not to have opinions about things until you have studied the evidence, and even then the conclusions may not be clear.
Edit: le statisticien en question est David Spiegelhalter.
* the effect the numbers have on people, or
* why people affect the numbers.
I cannot criticise them - it is entirely understandable that they are interested in the human story around the stats, and it probably reflects what the audience would ask. But all this is generally outside the expertise of the statistician. It doesn’t seem fair: astronomers don't expect to be asked about the effect their discoveries might have on people. But we statisticians clearly have to be ready."
Deux stratégies alors: (i) to have done your homework and spent some time examining the human context of the numbers, and at least be ready to summarise what social scientists have said about people’s behaviour. (...) (ii) to not only be ready for the question that you are not qualified to answer, but to positively welcome it. It gives a chance to explain that (to parody an old cliché) science means not having to say you know. It is OK not to have opinions about things until you have studied the evidence, and even then the conclusions may not be clear.
Edit: le statisticien en question est David Spiegelhalter.
Ah bon? c'est faux grammaticalement de dire au final?
Bon, va falloir que je change mes habitudes alors (pis celle-là elle est bien ancrée!).
Bon, va falloir que je change mes habitudes alors (pis celle-là elle est bien ancrée!).
Ben putain, ça fait mal. En vrac:
"Preventive medicine displays all 3 elements of arrogance. First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy. (...) Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations."
"Without evidence from positive randomized trials (and, better still, systematic reviews of randomized trials) we cannot justify soliciting the well to accept any personal health intervention. There are simply too many examples of the disastrous inadequacy of lesser evidence as a basis for individual interventions among the well: supplemental oxygen for healthy premies (causing retrolental fibroplasia), healthy babies sleeping face down (causing SIDS), thymic irradiation in healthy children, and the list goes on."
On rajoute à ça la prescription d'hormones aux femmes ménopausées, recommandées jusqu'à très récemment, et dont une étude a pu montrer que le traitement était calamiteux!
"I place the blame directly on the medical “experts” who, to gain private profit (from their industry affiliations), to satisfy a narcissistic need for public acclaim or in a misguided attempt to do good, advocate “preventive” manoeuvres that have never been validated in rigorous randomized trials."
"Preventive medicine displays all 3 elements of arrogance. First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy. (...) Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations."
"Without evidence from positive randomized trials (and, better still, systematic reviews of randomized trials) we cannot justify soliciting the well to accept any personal health intervention. There are simply too many examples of the disastrous inadequacy of lesser evidence as a basis for individual interventions among the well: supplemental oxygen for healthy premies (causing retrolental fibroplasia), healthy babies sleeping face down (causing SIDS), thymic irradiation in healthy children, and the list goes on."
On rajoute à ça la prescription d'hormones aux femmes ménopausées, recommandées jusqu'à très récemment, et dont une étude a pu montrer que le traitement était calamiteux!
"I place the blame directly on the medical “experts” who, to gain private profit (from their industry affiliations), to satisfy a narcissistic need for public acclaim or in a misguided attempt to do good, advocate “preventive” manoeuvres that have never been validated in rigorous randomized trials."
L'INRIA sceptique sur la loi sur le renseignement...
Oui, je suis assez d'accord. Un diplôme universitaire n'est pas forcément la meilleure preuve de la ténacité d'une personne. Il y a d'autres indicateurs plus pertinents.
Il faut toujours se méfier quand un journaliste ou un chargé de com utilise des images à la place de chiffres (un iceberg de la taille du pays de galles au lieu d'en donner la surface réelle). C'est qu'il cherche à faire passer un message, qui n'est jamais neutre (faire peur au lecteur, l'impressionner, etc.).
Yen a des très marrants
Sur l'effet Dunning Kruger que j'ai déja évoqué précédemment précédemment.
Plus d'ébola au libéria!
J'avais remarqué que Elsevier avait des pratiques douteuses dans ce genre. Depuis qu'on a sorti un papier sur l'efficacité de la vaccination contre la peste porcine dans Journal of Theoretical biology, je suis spammé comme jamais. Le nombre de sollicitations de participation à des soi-disantes conf (ressemblant plus à des opérations de pub qu'autre chose), et de spams en tout genre que je reçois, c'est hallucinant...
Marrant
À suivre de près. Quand on voit l'efficacité des opensourcemaps, faut voir comment un truc comme ça peut marcher.
Bonne analyse.
Très bon article.
Intéressante synthèse...
Intéressant: Gelman demande à Gigerenzer des détails sur les différences qui l'opposent à Kahneman.
Ressources intéressantes
Pas mal de quizz. Ya l'afrique, mais ya aussi plein d'autres tests
Pacman, pong et space invaders dans le même jeu. M'a l'air compliqué à jouer...
Marrant: ils ont mis le code civil sur github. Toutes les modifs depuis napoléon sont enregistrées comme des commits!