Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The fiducial argument illicitly treats θ as a random variable after conditioning on data, violating the frequentist prohibition on parameter distributions.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The fiducial argument uses structural/functional relationships between data and parameters, not claims about parameter distributions, so the prohibition may not apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frequentist conditional probabilities post-data (e.g., in sequential analysis) also condition on observed values without treating parameters as random, suggesting the critique overgeneralizes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Fisher himself defended fiducial distributions as distinct from both Bayesian priors and frequentist sampling distributions, warranting separate evaluation of its logical foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Frequentism defines probability only over repeated sampling, not over fixed parameter values, making post-data parameter distributions conceptually incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fiducial inference conditions on observed data then treats θ as random, which reverses the proper order of conditioning in frequentist probability theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This violation explains why fiducial intervals lack guaranteed coverage properties that frequentist confidence intervals mathematically ensure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42