Abstract
While results from statistical modelling too often receive blind acceptance, we question whether there is any real alternative to use of modelling. This does not diminish the main point of Professor Freedman, which is that healthy scepticism towards models is needed. While agreeing with many of Professor Freedman's points concerning the “objectivist” debate, we argue that there is a Bayesian school of objectivists that possesses considerable advantages over the classical objectivist school. At the least, the “debate” needs to be enlarged to include this school.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apostel, L. (1961), Towards the Formal Study of Models in the Non-Formal Sciences, pp. 1–37, in CRM.
Freedman, D. (1987), As Others See Us: A Case Study in Path Analysis,Journal of Educational Statistics 12 101–223, with discussion.
Freudenthal, H. (1961), [CRM]:The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences, Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1961), Models in Applied Probability, pp. 78–88, in CRM.
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J. and Kruger, L. (1989), [EC]:The Empire of Chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Suppes, P. (1961), A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences, pp. 163–177, in CRM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berger, J. Discussion of David Freedman's “Some issues in the foundations of statistics”. Found Sci 1, 41–67 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208724
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208724