Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That blog sounds like a straw man argument. It appears to confound a philosophy of probability with some kind of (nonexistent) inherent limitation in the capacity to create probability models. I do not recognize any form of classical statistical procedures or methodology in that characterization. Nevertheless, I think your final conclusion is a good one--but the language it uses, by not making it clear that the bet concerns the CI and not the mean, risks creating a form of confusion that this question is intended to address. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2015 at 23:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One way I see often used is to emphasize that the CI is the result of a procedure. What I like about your final statement is that it can readily be recast in such a form, as in "You're no more wrong to bet at 95:5 odds that your 95% confidence interval has covered the true mean, than you are to bet on your friend's coin flip at 50:50 odds." $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2015 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ OK, changed it. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2015 at 15:45