A Generalization of the Savage–Dickey Density Ratio for Testing Equality and Order Constrained Hypotheses

The Savage–Dickey density ratio is a specific expression of the Bayes factor when testing a precise (equality constrained) hypothesis against an unrestricted alternative. The expression greatly simplifies the computation of the Bayes factor at the cost of assuming a specific form of the prior under the precise hypothesis as a function of the unrestricted prior. A generalization was proposed by Verdinelli and Wasserman such that the priors can be freely specified under both hypotheses while keeping the computational advantage. This article presents an extension of this generalization when the hypothesis has equality as well as order constraints on the parameters of interest. The methodology is used for a constrained multivariate t-test using the JZS Bayes factor and a constrained hypothesis test under the multinomial model

Making Sense of Uncertainty in the Science Classroom:A Bayesian Approach

Uncertainty is ubiquitous in science, but scientific knowledge is often represented to the public and in educational contexts as certain and immutable. This contrast can foster distrust when scientific knowledge develops in a way that people perceive as a reversals, as we have observed during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on research in statistics, child development, and several studies in science education, we argue that a Bayesian approach can support science learners to make sense of uncertainty. We provide a brief primer on Bayes’ theorem and then describe three ways to make Bayesian reasoning practical in K-12 science education contexts. There are a) using principles informed by Bayes’ theorem that relate to the nature of knowing and knowledge, b) interacting with a web-based application (or widget—Confidence Updater) that makes the calculations needed to apply Bayes’ theorem more practical, and c) adopting strategies for supporting even young learners to engage in Bayesian reasoning. We conclude with directions for future research and sum up how viewing science and scientific knowledge from a Bayesian perspective can build trust in science. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11191-022-00341-3