Commentary

You have free access to this content

The humble Bayesian: Model checking from a fully Bayesian perspective

  1. Richard D. Morey1,*,
  2. Jan-Willem Romeijn1,
  3. Jeffrey N. Rouder2

Article first published online: 28 SEP 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02067.x

Issue

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volume 66, Issue 1, pages 68–75, February 2013

Additional Information

How to Cite

Morey, R. D., Romeijn, J.-W. and Rouder, J. N. (2013), The humble Bayesian: Model checking from a fully Bayesian perspective. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66: 68–75. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02067.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Groningen, The Netherlands

  2. 2

    University of Missouri, USA

*Correspondence should be addressed to Richard D. Morey, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: r.d.morey@rug.nl).

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 17 JAN 2013
  2. Article first published online: 28 SEP 2012
  3. Manuscript Received: 10 MAR 2012

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (162K)

References

  • Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 59–74. doi:10.1080/02698590305238
  • Berger, J. (2006). The case for objective Bayesian analysis. Bayesian Analysis, 1, 385–402.doi:10.1214/06-BA115
  • Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics: Proceedings of a workshop (pp. 201–236). New York: Academic Press.
  • Dawid, P. (1982). The well-calibrated Bayesian. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(379), 605–610. doi:10.2307/2287720
  • de Finetti, B. (1995). The logic of probability. Philosophical Studies, 77, 181–190. doi:10.1007/BF00996317
  • Forster, M., & Sober, E. (1994). How to tell when simpler, more unified, or less ad hoc theories will provide more accurate predictions. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 1–35. doi:10.1093/bjps/45.1.1
  • Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2013). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 8–38. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x
    Direct Link:
  • Goldstein, M. (2006). Subjective Bayesian analysis: Principles and practice. Bayesian Analysis, 1, 403–420. doi:10.1214/06-BA116
  • Howson, C. (2001). The logic of Bayesian probability. In D. Corfield & J. Williamson (Eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism (pp. 137–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S325–S336. doi:10.1086/392611
  • Hutten, E. H. (1954). The rôle of models in physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4, 284–301. doi:10.1093/bjps/IV.16.284
  • Kieseppä, I. (2001). Statistical model selection criteria and Bayesianism. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings), 68(3), S141–S152. doi:10.1086/392904
  • Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of scientific knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Mayo, D., & Spanos, A. (2011). Error statistics. In P. S. Bandyopadhyay & M. R. Forster (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 153–198). London: Elsevier.
  • Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2011). Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 16, 406–419. doi:10.1037/a0024377
  • Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Speckman, P. L. (2008). A statistical model for discriminating between subliminal and near-liminal performance. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 21–36. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2007.09.007
  • Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Speckman, P. L. (2009). A truncated-probit item response model for estimating psychophysical thresholds. Psychometrika, 74, 603–618. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9122-3
  • Romeijn, J.-W. (2011). Statistics as inductive inference. In P. S. Bandyopadhyay & M. R. Forster (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 751–775). London: Elsevier.
  • Romeijn, J.-W., & van de Schoot, R. (2008). A philosopher's view on Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses. In H. Hoijtink, I. Klugkist & P. Boelen (Eds.), Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses (pp. 329–357). New York: Springer.
  • Romeijn, J.-W., van de Schoot, R., & Hoijtink, H. (2012). One size does not fit all: Derivation of a prior-adapted BIC. In D. Dieks, W. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, M. Stöltzner, & M. Weber (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (Vol. 3, pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Rouder, J. N., Lu, J., Morey, R. D., Sun, D., & Speckman, P. L. (2008a). A hierarchical process dissociation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 370–389. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.370
  • Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2011). A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem's ESP claim. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 682–689. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7
  • Rouder, J. N., Tuerlinckx, F., Speckman, P. L., Lu, J., & Gomez, P. (2008b). A hierarchical approach for fitting curves to response time measurements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1201–1208. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1201
  • Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics. (2nd ed.) New York: Dover.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (162K)