"[It] may be laid down as a general rule that, if the result of a long series of precise observations approximates a simple relation so closely that the remaining difference is undetectable by observation and may be attributed to the errors to which they are liable, then this relation is probably that of nature." (Pierre-Simon Laplace, "Mémoire sur les Inégalites Séculaires des Planètes et des Satellites", 1787)
"It is surprising to learn the number of causes of error which enter into the simplest experiment, when we strive to attain rigid accuracy." (William S Jevons, "The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method", 1874)
"Some of the common ways of producing a false statistical argument are to quote figures without their context, omitting the cautions as to their incompleteness, or to apply them to a group of phenomena quite different to that to which they in reality relate; to take these estimates referring to only part of a group as complete; to enumerate the events favorable to an argument, omitting the other side; and to argue hastily from effect to cause, this last error being the one most often fathered on to statistics. For all these elementary mistakes in logic, statistics is held responsible." (Sir Arthur L Bowley, "Elements of Statistics", 1901)
"If the number of experiments be very large, we may have precise information as to the value of the mean, but if our sample be small, we have two sources of uncertainty: (I) owing to the 'error of random sampling' the mean of our series of experiments deviates more or less widely from the mean of the population, and (2) the sample is not sufficiently large to determine what is the law of distribution of individuals." (William S Gosset, "The Probable Error of a Mean", Biometrika, 1908)
"We know not to what are due the accidental errors, and precisely because we do not know, we are aware they obey the law of Gauss. Such is the paradox." (Henri Poincaré, "The Foundations of Science", 1913)
"No observations are absolutely trustworthy. In no field of observation can we entirely rule out the possibility that an observation is vitiated by a large measurement or execution error. If a reading is found to lie a very long way from its fellows in a series of replicate observations, there must be a suspicion that the deviation is caused by a blunder or gross error of some kind. [...] One sufficiently erroneous reading can wreck the whole of a statistical analysis, however many observations there are." (Francis J Anscombe, "Rejection of Outliers", Technometrics Vol. 2 (2), 1960)
"It might be reasonable to expect that the more we know about any set of statistics, the greater the confidence we would have in using them, since we would know in which directions they were defective; and that the less we know about a set of figures, the more timid and hesitant we would be in using them. But, in fact, it is the exact opposite which is normally the case; in this field, as in many others, knowledge leads to caution and hesitation, it is ignorance that gives confidence and boldness. For knowledge about any set of statistics reveals the possibility of error at every stage of the statistical process; the difficulty of getting complete coverage in the returns, the difficulty of framing answers precisely and unequivocally, doubts about the reliability of the answers, arbitrary decisions about classification, the roughness of some of the estimates that are made before publishing the final results. Knowledge of all this, and much else, in detail, about any set of figures makes one hesitant and cautious, perhaps even timid, in using them." (Ely Devons, "Essays in Economics", 1961)
"The art of using the language of figures correctly is not to be over-impressed by the apparent ai
"Measurement, we have seen, always has an element of error in it. The most exact description or prediction that a scientist can make is still only approximate." (Abraham Kaplan, "The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science", 1964)
"A mature science, with respect to the matter of errors in variables, is not one that measures its variables without error, for this is impossible. It is, rather, a science which properly manages its errors, controlling their magnitudes and correctly calculating their implications for substantive conclusions." (Otis D Duncan, "Introduction to Structural Equation Models", 1975)
"Pencil and paper for construction of distributions, scatter diagrams, and run-charts to compare small groups and to detect trends are more efficient methods of estimation than statistical inference that depends on variances and standard errors, as the simple techniques preserve the information in the original data." (William E Deming, "On Probability as Basis for Action" American Statistician Vol. 29 (4), 1975)
"When the statistician looks at the outside world, he cannot, for example, rely on finding errors that are independently and identically distributed in approximately normal distributions. In particular, most economic and business data are collected serially and can be expected, therefore, to be heavily serially dependent. So is much of the data collected from the automatic instruments which are becoming so common in laboratories these days. Analysis of such data, using procedures such as standard regression analysis which assume independence, can lead to gross error. Furthermore, the possibility of contamination of the error distribution by outliers is always present and has recently received much attention. More generally, real data sets, especially if they are long, usually show inhomogeneity in the mean, the variance, or both, and it is not always possible to randomize." (George E P Box, "Some Problems of Statistics and Everyday Life", Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74 (365), 1979)
"Under conditions of uncertainty, both rationality and measurement are essential to decision-making. Rational people process information objectively: whatever errors they make in forecasting the future are random errors rather than the result of a stubborn bias toward either optimism or pessimism. They respond to new information on the basis of a clearly defined set of preferences. They know what they want, and they use the information in ways that support their preferences." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)
"Linear regression assumes that in the population a normal distribution of error values around the predicted Y is associated with each X value, and that the dispersion of the error values for each X value is the same. The assumptions imply normal and similarly dispersed error distributions." (Fred C Pampel, "Linear Regression: A primer", 2000)
"Compound errors can begin with any of the standard sorts of bad statistics - a guess, a poor sample, an inadvertent transformation, perhaps confusion over the meaning of a complex statistic. People inevitably want to put statistics to use, to explore a number's implications. [...] The strengths and weaknesses of those original numbers should affect our confidence in the second-generation statistics." (Joel Best, "Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists", 2001)
"Trimming potentially theoretically meaningful variables is not advisable unless one is quite certain that the coefficient for the variable is near zero, that the variable is inconsequential, and that trimming will not introduce misspecification error." (James Jaccard, "Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression", 2001)
"The central limit theorem says that, under conditions almost always satisfied in the real world of experimentation, the distribution of such a linear function of errors will tend to normality as the number of its components becomes large. The tendency to normality occurs almost regardless of the individual distributions of the component errors. An important proviso is that several sources of error must make important contributions to the overall error and that no particular source of error dominate the rest." (George E P Box et al, "Statistics for Experimenters: Design, discovery, and innovation" 2nd Ed., 2005)
"Two things explain the importance of the normal distribution: (1) The central limit effect that produces a tendency for real error distributions to be 'normal like'. (2) The robustness to nonnormality of some common statistical procedures, where 'robustness' means insensitivity to deviations from theoretical normality." (George E P Box et al, "Statistics for Experimenters: Design, discovery, and innovation" 2nd Ed., 2005)
"There are many ways for error to creep into facts and figures that seem entirely straightforward. Quantities can be miscounted. Small samples can fail to accurately reflect the properties of the whole population. Procedures used to infer quantities from other information can be faulty. And then, of course, numbers can be total bullshit, fabricated out of whole cloth in an effort to confer credibility on an otherwise flimsy argument. We need to keep all of these things in mind when we look at quantitative claims. They say the data never lie - but we need to remember that the data often mislead." (Carl T Bergstrom & Jevin D West, "Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World", 2020)
"Always expect to find at least one error when you proofread your own statistics. If you don’t, you are probably making the same mistake twice." (Cheryl Russell)
[Murphy’s Laws of Analysis:] "(1) In any collection of data, the figures that are obviously correct contain errors. (2) It is customary for a decimal to be misplaced. (3) An error that can creep into a calculation, will. Also, it will always be in the direction that will cause the most damage to the calculation." (G C Deakly)
No comments:
Post a Comment