Thoughts on the “scientific method”: part 2 – frequentist fecklessness

Michael R. Powers

Journal of Risk Finance, 2007, vol. 8, issue 4, 325-329

Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this two‐part series is to consider the role of the “scientific method” (SM) in human understanding, questioning both its consistency in actual practice and its reasonableness as a system of philosophy and action. Design/methodology/approach - Part 2 considers problems of inefficiency and inertia caused by the SM's collectivist, frequentist orientation. Findings - It is argued that problems caused by the SM's frequentist framework may be avoided by a more individualist, Bayesian approach. Originality/value - The two‐part series challenges certain aspects of the “scientific method” as employed in the practice of modern science.

Keywords: Scientific management; Philosophy; Bayesian statistical decision theory (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:jrfpps:15265940710818940

DOI: 10.1108/15265940710818940

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk Finance is currently edited by Nawazish Mirza

More articles in Journal of Risk Finance from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().