At the end of Vanessa Didelez’s talk in the Foundations of causal inference workshop at the Isaac Newton Institute today, I asked her whether she would be okay with a mediation publication that only discusses potential interventionist interpretation in the Discussion section of the paper.
The following is an email exchange with Hyunseung Kang on the nature of randomization inference. This was sparked by a couple of papers by David Freedman and David Lane: A Nonstochastic Interpretation of Reported Significance Levels; Significance Testing in a Nonstochastic Setting.
This post is derived from my talk “Fisher, Statistics, and Randomization” in the Fisher in the 21st Century Conference organized by Fisher’s College, Gonville & Caius. In the first half of that talk, I tried to trace the origin of randomization.
I read a few interesting articles this week on the Fisher-Neyman debate on the foundation of hypothesis testing:
The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson Theories of Testing Hypotheses: One Theory or Two?. Rigorous uncertainty: why RA Fisher is important.
Over this Easter weekend, I wrote the following commentary for the reprinting on Leo Breiman’s paper “Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures” by Observational Studies. This is partly based on a talk I gave last year.