Change the range not the language on confidence intervals

f2harrell: > If you poll consumers of such work and ask them to interpret this, their level of understanding will approach zero. Until I started visiting this forum, my intuition regarding these elementary frequentist concepts was less than zero. But going through your posts and references, along with the writing of @Sander has helped greatly. I don’t think I’m alone in this. Looking back, it would have been easier for me to understand the obscure frequentist notion of “confidence” that is distinct from probability if it were linked to the likelihood concept. The likelihood function draws frequentist and Bayesian inference much closer. Sander pointed out in this old thread: The most compatible value with the data within a confidence interval > The full graphs behind such numbers [ie. p values, s values, likelihood ratios, confidence intervals] are very important for teaching and classroom data analysis, however, because we need to instill everyone with the idea that the numbers are merely road signs indicating where things are located on a much more detailed map of results. The most compatible value with the data within a confidence interval data analysis > R-cubed: “If one wishes to condition on the data (ie treat data as given), why wouldn’t he/she simply use relative measures of evidence (ie. likelihoods)?” ?: At the end did you mean “(e.g. likelihood ratios [LRs])”? There are other relative measures including posterior odds (POs) which are LRs only under near-flat priors. That aside, I’m fine with relative measures as part of a toolkit that also includes absolute measures. As an editor I’d have no rigid requirements other than using reasonabl…