4 ms·
Cue “p = 0.05 is a random choice” and a big thread about p-hacking. Any takers? It feels like everything to say has already been said about the bias of small s
by sillysaurusx 6y ago
Cue “p = 0.05 is a random choice” and a big thread about p-hacking. Any takers?
It feels like everything to say has already been said about the bias of small sample sizes and the dangers of p-hacking. But it also seems like the discussion is inevitable here.
I wonder if there’s a new insight to glean, somehow...
For a background on why p-values are misleading, see https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q which is excellent. He points out that 0.05 was selected by Ronald Fischer in 1925, and people have gone with it since.
- im3w1l 6y agoThe reason we have stuck with it ever since it s because it's a decent cutoff. I think in physics they sometimes use a much higher threshold of 5 sigma. Presumably because having much more data means they can afford to.
- outlace 6y agoA 5% false positive rate can be pretty high depending on the situation, like whether or not a drug is effective.