7 ms·

Change p value from 0.05 to 0.005 won't stop p-hacking. And this might also lead to more grunted graduate students as they then will have to increase sample num

Change p value from 0.05 to 0.005 won't stop p-hacking. And this might also lead to more grunted graduate students as they then will have to increase sample numbers to satisfy new test, which inevitably increase the already painful long time span for projects to get published

taeric 9y ago
To be fair, this is a pragmatic, not a technical, solution. Similarly, we limit the speeds we allow in residential areas not because it prevents wreckless driving, but because it decreases the actual risk of it. Similarly, the technical solution involves technology that does not require drivers and has no risk of human error anymore. The pragmatic solution is to just limit the acceptable speeds.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  A bit of humorous pedantry: We seek to prevent reckless driving. "Wreckless" driving is what we're trying to promote.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Thanks for the pedantry. It is amusing to me, because the "w" looks way more correct to me. Can't say why, though.
    - noxToken 9y ago
      Though reck is a word, it isn't commonly used, whereas wreck is a pretty elementary word. Reck and wreck are homophones. That's probably your answer.
      - taeric 9y ago
        Right. But to me the word "wreckless" even looks like what I want in this sentence. I think I take the meaning to be "as if wrecks weren't a thing." As opposed to how the pedantry points out, that if "wreckless" were a word, it would actually be more of the opposite of "reckless."
kharms 9y ago
I've not spent much time in academia, but it was my impression that p-hacking is driven primarily by ignorance rather than willful deceit. If that is indeed the case, it would indeed limit p-hacking as there's usually a finite number of variables being looked at. Edit: or rather, it would limit false positives that show up as a result of accidental p-value hacking, if not the process itself.
std_throwaway 9y ago
Science would benefit from a little less noise.

taeric 9y ago

To be fair, this is a pragmatic, not a technical, solution. Similarly, we limit the speeds we allow in residential areas not because it prevents wreckless driving, but because it decreases the actual risk of it. Similarly, the technical solution involves technology that does not require drivers and has no risk of human error anymore. The pragmatic solution is to just limit the acceptable speeds.

nkrisc 9y ago
A bit of humorous pedantry: We seek to prevent reckless driving. "Wreckless" driving is what we're trying to promote.
- taeric 9y ago
  Thanks for the pedantry. It is amusing to me, because the "w" looks way more correct to me. Can't say why, though.
  - noxToken 9y ago
    Though reck is a word, it isn't commonly used, whereas wreck is a pretty elementary word. Reck and wreck are homophones. That's probably your answer.
    - taeric 9y ago
      Right. But to me the word "wreckless" even looks like what I want in this sentence. I think I take the meaning to be "as if wrecks weren't a thing." As opposed to how the pedantry points out, that if "wreckless" were a word, it would actually be more of the opposite of "reckless."

kharms 9y ago

I've not spent much time in academia, but it was my impression that p-hacking is driven primarily by ignorance rather than willful deceit. If that is indeed the case, it would indeed limit p-hacking as there's usually a finite number of variables being looked at. Edit: or rather, it would limit false positives that show up as a result of accidental p-value hacking, if not the process itself.

std_throwaway 9y ago

Science would benefit from a little less noise.