> or a p value of something like p = 0.0001 This has been proposed [0], albeit for a threshold of p < 0.005. Here's Andy Gelman and others arguing otherwise [1]. They also got like 800 scientists to sign on to the general idea of no longer using statistical significance at all [2]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0189-z [1] http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/ab... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9
Redefine statistical significance
Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, Magnus Johannesson
Show all 72 authors
Brian A. Nosek, E.-J. Wagenmakers, Richard Berk, Kenneth A. Bollen, Björn Brembs, Lawrence Brown, Colin Camerer, David Cesarini, Christopher D. Chambers, Merlise Clyde, Thomas D. Cook, Paul De Boeck, Zoltan Dienes, Anna Dreber, Kenny Easwaran, Charles Efferson, Ernst Fehr, Fiona Fidler, Andy P. Field, Malcolm Forster, Edward I. George, Richard Gonzalez, Steven Goodman, Edwin Green, Donald P. Green, Anthony G. Greenwald, Jarrod D. Hadfield, Larry V. Hedges, Leonhard Held, Teck Hua Ho, Herbert Hoijtink, Daniel J. Hruschka, Kosuke Imai, Guido Imbens, John P. A. Ioannidis, Minjeong Jeon, James Holland Jones, Michael Kirchler, David Laibson, John List, Roderick Little, Arthur Lupia, Edouard Machery, Scott E. Maxwell, Michael McCarthy, Don A. Moore, Stephen L. Morgan, Marcus Munafó, Shinichi Nakagawa, Brendan Nyhan, Timothy H. Parker, Luis Pericchi, Marco Perugini, Jeff Rouder, Judith Rousseau, Victoria Savalei, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Thomas Sellke, Betsy Sinclair, Dustin Tingley, Trisha Van Zandt, Simine Vazire, Duncan J. Watts, Christopher Winship, Robert L. Wolpert, Yu Xie, Cristobal Young, Jonathan Zinman, Valen E. Johnson
2017 · Nature Human Behaviour
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 3
- Readers
- 3
- Months
- 3
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions
Reminds me of http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Of course not really, since psychology studies adhere to the most professional statistic evaluation methods available, as known since https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0189-z
Most journals have a HTML and a PDF version (as does Nature): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0189-z I prefer the PDF version for print outs.
Keep following the thread.
More in Statistics & probabilityMore from the same topics.
Dissolving the Fermi Paradox
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Toby Ord
The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe.
Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization
Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt +2
Despite their massive size, successful deep artificial neural networks can exhibit a remarkably small difference between training and test performance.
The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine
Scott Aaronson
In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will.
There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society.