3 ms·
> The hunt for publishable p-values is nearly always fruitful. If one cannot find a publishable p-value in one’s data—with the freedom to pick and choose mode
by oldgradstudent 4y ago
> The hunt for publishable p-values is nearly always fruitful. If one
cannot find a publishable p-value in one’s data—with the freedom to pick
and choose models and test statistics, to engage in “sub-group” and sequential analysis, and so on—then one is being lazy.
> P-values can and are used to
prove anything and everything. The sole limitation is the imagination of the
researcher. Fleeting exposure to a 72 × 45 pixel image of the American flag
turns one into a Republican; walking through a door (an “event segmentation”) damages your memory; Keynesian theory is wrong; Keynesian theory
is right; selenium causes cancer; selenium cures cancer. This list could (and
will) go on in perpetuity.
Sadly true and well written. However, the author is over certain that using Bayesian statistics will make things better.
- uniqueuid 4y agoRight, people can just go ahead with uniform priors and put significance stars next to credible intervals. But even then, there are a number of benefits, such as even stating CIs in the first place and needing to encounter some literature that's more advanced than clicking "run test" in a readymade GUI.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y agoMaybe not, but the author is pointing at a much broader issue. Reseaerchers are pressured to do as much as possible with as little as possible. So you end up with salad bowl studies that are a mile wide and an inch deep, trying to do everything without even a pilot study to figure out what a minimum sample size might be.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]