3 ms·
That's exactly Andrew Gelman's point. A different, more sensible analysis, could have (most likely would have) resulted in a nothing-to-see-here conclusion. Tha
by credit_guy 7y ago
That's exactly Andrew Gelman's point. A different, more sensible analysis, could have (most likely would have) resulted in a nothing-to-see-here conclusion. That conclusion would not be a publishable result, and publishing is the main incentive in the field. Ergo "the incentives are all wrong".
Andrew Gelman by the way, is the father of the MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) engine STAN (together with Bob Carpenter [1]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(software)
- mannykannot 7y agoThe point was much clearer to me after I had read the precursor article: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2013/08/05/evidence-on-the-impact-of-sustained-use-of-polynomial-regression-on-causal-inference-a-claim-that-coal-heating-is-reducing-lifespan-by-5-years-for-half-a-billion-people/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2013/08/05/evidence-o... "What I am suggesting is a two-step: the authors retreat from their strongly model-based claim of statistical significance, and the journal accept that non-statistically-significant findings on important topics are still worth publishing."