Upon my return [to academia, after years of private statistical consulting], I started reading the Annals of Statistics … and was bemused. Every article started with:
Assume that the data are generated by the following model…
followed by mathematics exploring inference, hypothesis testing, and asymptotics…. I [have a] very low … opinion … of the theory published in the Annals of Statistics. [S]tatistics [is] a science that deals with data.
…
The linear regression model led to many erroneous conclusions that appeared in journal articles waving the 5% significance level without knowing whether the model fit the data. Nowadays, I think most statisticians will agree that this is a suspect way to arrive at conclusions.
…
In the mid-1980s … A new research community … sprang up. Their goal was predictive accuracy….. They began working on complex prediction problems where it was obvious that data models were not applicable: speech recognition, image recognition, nonlinear time series prediction, handwriting recognition, prediction in financial markets.
…
The advances in methodology and increases in predictive accuracy since the mid-1980s that have occurred in the research of machine learning has been phenomenal…. What has been learned? The three lessons that seem most important:
- • Rashomon: the multiplicity of good models;
- • Occam: the conflict between simplicity and accuracy;
- • Bellman: dimensionality — blessing or curse
Leo Breiman, The Two Cultures of Statistics (2001)
(which are: machine learning / artificial intelligence / algorithmists —vs— model builders / statistics / econometrics / psychometrics)
Tags: academia, academic jousting matches, academic trends, academic trifles, academic wars, academics getting off track, artificial intelligence, C P Snow, econometrics, image recognition, Leo Breiman, machine learning, math, mathematics, maths, psychometrics, random forests, signal processing, statistics
Leave a Reply