>The problem is that the p-value gives the right answer to the wrong question. What we really want to know is not the probability of the observations given a hypothesis about the existence of a real effect, but rather the probability that there is a real effect – that the hypothesis is true – given the observations. And that is a problem of induction.
The problem of induction is real and unavoidable in the general case, but there is no such thing as "the probability that there is a real effect". Either there is a "real effect" or there is not.
It might be possible to find a "probability" that you observed a "real effect".
>The problem of induction was solved, in principle, by the Reverend Thomas Bayes in the middle of the 18th century.
The problem of induction is fundamentally unsolvable (hence, "problem"). The article just states that it was solved and never mentions it again. Is it a widely held view that induction was solved by Bayes? Does anyone know where I can read more detailed claims about how people believe Bayes solved induction?
The problem of induction is real and unavoidable in the general case, but there is no such thing as "the probability that there is a real effect". Either there is a "real effect" or there is not.
It might be possible to find a "probability" that you observed a "real effect".
>The problem of induction was solved, in principle, by the Reverend Thomas Bayes in the middle of the 18th century.
The problem of induction is fundamentally unsolvable (hence, "problem"). The article just states that it was solved and never mentions it again. Is it a widely held view that induction was solved by Bayes? Does anyone know where I can read more detailed claims about how people believe Bayes solved induction?