3 ms·
But it should be central to scientific process. If you do any kind of experiment and gather the results, then the first thing you need to do is to make sure tha
by mamon 8y ago
But it should be central to scientific process. If you do any kind of experiment and gather the results, then the first thing you need to do is to make sure that your results are real, and not just some random noise in data. Otherwise you're not doing science anymore.
- drcode 8y ago...but does statistical significance really allow you to distinguish real results from random noise? I think it's pretty clear that it isn't a good tool for achieving this goal, due to the "p hacking" phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
- Fomite 8y agoFirst, there's a lot of science that's done without "experiments". Second, the problem with significance is it's pinning "not just some random noise" to an arbitrary threshold. Results with a p-value of 0.051 and those with a p-value of 0.049 are effectively the same, and yet are treated as if they're worlds apart.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 8y agoSpecifically, the issue is with null hypothesis significance testing. That's what this whole "statistical significance" debate is about, because "Scientists rise up against NHST" isn't clickbaity enough :(. Yes, statistics are central, and we have to answer the question you posed, but we don't have to use NHST to do it.