Advertisement

A Rejoinder to Fienberg’s Comments

  • David A. Freedman

Abstract

In our various ways, Fienberg and I are both addressing the relevance of Standard Statistical models to social science research. I found it convenient to make part of my argument in terms of a comparison between the use of models in the natural sciences and in the social sciences. Fienberg seems to disagree more with my history lesson than with its conclusions, but that may be a matter of rhetoric—on both sides.

Keywords

Stochastic Model Social Science Research Projection Pursuit Social Science Research Council Standard Statistical Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, R. McC., Smelser, N.J., and Treiman, D.J. (eds.) (1982).Behavioral and Social Science Research: A National Resource, I, II. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., and Stone, C. (1983).Tree Structured Methods in Classification and Regression. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  3. Donoho, D., Huber, P., and Thoma, M. (1981). The use of kinematic displays to represent high dimensional data, in W. Eddy (ed.),Computer Science and Statistics, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on the Interface. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 274–278.Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, R.A. (1918). On the correlation between relatives on the assumption of Mendelian inheritance.Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. 52, 399–433.Google Scholar
  5. Fisherkeller, M.A., Friedman, J.H., and Tukey, J.W.T. (1974).PRIM-9an interactive multidimensional data display system. Stanford Linear Accelerator Publication No. 1408.Google Scholar
  6. Freedman, D.A. (1981). Some pitfalls in large econometric models: A case study.Journal of Business 54, 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freedman, D.A. (1983). Comments on a paper by Markus. Technical Report, Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  8. Freedman, D.A. and Lane, D. (1983). Significance testing in a nonstochastic setting, in P. Bickel, K. Doksum, J.L. Hodges, Jr. (eds.),A Festschrift for Erich L. Lehmann. Beimont, Calif.: Wadsworth, pp. 184–208.Google Scholar
  9. Freedman, D.A., Rothenberg, T., and Sutch, R. (1983). On energy policy models.Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 1, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, J. and Tukey, J.W.T. (1974). A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis.IEEE Transactions and Computers 9, 881–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauss, C.F. (1809).Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium. English translation published by Dover, New York, 1963:Theory of Motion of the Heavenly Bodies Moving Around the Sun in Conic Sections.Google Scholar
  12. Huber, P. (1981). Projection pursuit. Technical Report PJH-4, Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Markus, G. (1983). Dynamic modelling of cohort change: The case of political partisanship.American Journal of Political Science 27, 717–739. Reprinted in this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poisson, S.D. (1837).Recherches sur la probabilite des jugements en matiere criminelle et en matiere civile. Paris: Bachelier.Google Scholar
  15. Prewitt, K. (1980). Annual Report of the President 1979–1980: The council and the usefulness of the social sciences.Annual Report 1979–1980. New York: Social Science Research CouncilGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Freedman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations