Fiducial inference: Difference between revisions

→‎Background: Modified the volume for the Fisher citation in Eugenics. Also provided link to Wiley source for this.
m (→‎Status of the approach: rmv duplicate sentence)
(→‎Background: Modified the volume for the Fisher citation in Eugenics. Also provided link to Wiley source for this.)
==Background==
 
The general approach of fiducial inference was proposed by [[Ronald Fisher]].<ref>Fisher, R. A. (1935) "The fiducial argument in statistical inference", ''Annals of Eugenics'', 85, 391–398. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1935.tb02120.x/epdf</ref><ref>[http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/seidenfeld/relating%20to%20Fisher/Fisher's%20Fiducial%20Argument%20and%20Bayes%20Theorem.pdf R. A. Fisher's Fiducial Argument and Bayes' Theorem by Teddy Seidenfeld]</ref> Here "fiducial" comes from the Latin for faith. Fiducial inference can be interpreted as an attempt to perform [[inverse probability]] without calling on [[prior probability distribution]]s.<ref>Quenouille (1958), Chapter 6</ref> Fiducial inference quickly attracted controversy and was never widely accepted<ref>Neyman, Jerzy. "Note on an article by Sir Ronald Fisher." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) (1956): 288-294.</ref>. Indeed, counter-examples to the claims of Fisher for fiducial inference were soon published.{{Citation needed|date=June 2011}} These counter-examples cast doubt on the coherence of "fiducial inference" as a system of [[statistical inference]] or [[inductive logic]]. Other studies showed that, where the steps of fiducial inference are said to lead to "fiducial probabilities" (or "fiducial distributions"), these probabilities lack the property of additivity, and so cannot constitute a [[probability measure]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2011}}
 
The concept of fiducial inference can be outlined by comparing its treatment of the problem of [[interval estimation]] in relation to other modes of statistical inference.
300

edits