tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post3119693576878218613..comments2023-12-27T16:39:40.424+11:00Comments on Ecstathy: Statistics as philosophyEfriquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08526031804261484547noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-19300735016339712452008-12-30T23:52:00.000+11:002008-12-30T23:52:00.000+11:00I had a similar problem with probability in school...I had a similar problem with probability in school. I could do all the problems and got good grades, but I knew that there was a deeper understanding the eluded me, and that if I had understood it properly I could have done much more interesting things with it (and the problems we got in school would have been absurdly easy).<BR/><BR/>However, I went on to do other things and now my math is rusty.Valhar2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/05467019327257867276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237013510406351701.post-89134308722761009582008-10-20T15:09:00.000+11:002008-10-20T15:09:00.000+11:00Hmmm…I certainly agree that statistics is differen...Hmmm…I certainly agree that statistics is different from what most mathematicians do, but it seems to me that it's more a matter of the fact that statistics attempts to answer questions about the real world. Granted that I haven't done much statistics (or any applied math), but it seems to me that the distinction is pretty much one of "pure" vs. "applied" math.<BR/><BR/>In my interests I'm about as pure a mathematician as they come--I love abstraction and I could care less how my math relates to the real world. But I can still understand the basic statistics I've studied, and it doesn't seem to be fundamentally different from other aspects of applied math, in that you're developing and using mathematical tools to answer concrete questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com