5 ms·

So very true. I went from physics into biology, and the shoddy application of statistics is surprising. This is a failure that could be easily addressed at the

by markkat 15y ago

So very true. I went from physics into biology, and the shoddy application of statistics is surprising. This is a failure that could be easily addressed at the university level. More stats classes.

onemoreact 15y ago
The best and simplest approach IMO would be improving peer review. If it was understood that scientific journals would reject papers with poor statistical analysis you would see changes fairly rapidly.
- markkat 15y ago
  Yes, but I think one of the problems is that the reviewers can't sufficiently judge statistics. It is peer-review, after all. I've had some reviewers ask some questions that indicated that they didn't really understand the t-test.
- carbocation 15y ago
  Nature and the NEJM, and possibly others, assign statistical reviewers. So this is a known problem that some high profile journals are attempting to correct.
bmuon 15y ago
I think it doesn't have to be just "more stats classes". They also need to be focused on the kind of work they'll need to do with those statistics. If you teach future biologists or medical doctors "so there is this theorem that says that if there is statistical significance of A and not of B, then the value of P equals the..." they won't learn it/use it.
jessriedel 15y ago
Frankly, I was pretty blown away by how poorly it's understood by physicists (although they are probably better than biologist). Even in experimental particle physics, where statistics are essential, the statistical techniques are all self-taught and seat-of-the-pants. I am confident everything being released by the major particle physics experiments is statistically sound after it goes through the collaboration review process, but there are certainly poor inferences being made at the level of the individual physicist. I listened to at least a couple of confused conversations between smart particle physicists about whether frequentism or Bayesianism was "right".

by markkat 15y ago

So very true. I went from physics into biology, and the shoddy application of statistics is surprising. This is a failure that could be easily addressed at the university level. More stats classes.

onemoreact 15y ago

The best and simplest approach IMO would be improving peer review. If it was understood that scientific journals would reject papers with poor statistical analysis you would see changes fairly rapidly.

markkat 15y ago
Yes, but I think one of the problems is that the reviewers can't sufficiently judge statistics. It is peer-review, after all. I've had some reviewers ask some questions that indicated that they didn't really understand the t-test.
carbocation 15y ago
Nature and the NEJM, and possibly others, assign statistical reviewers. So this is a known problem that some high profile journals are attempting to correct.

bmuon 15y ago

I think it doesn't have to be just "more stats classes". They also need to be focused on the kind of work they'll need to do with those statistics. If you teach future biologists or medical doctors "so there is this theorem that says that if there is statistical significance of A and not of B, then the value of P equals the..." they won't learn it/use it.

jessriedel 15y ago

Frankly, I was pretty blown away by how poorly it's understood by physicists (although they are probably better than biologist). Even in experimental particle physics, where statistics are essential, the statistical techniques are all self-taught and seat-of-the-pants. I am confident everything being released by the major particle physics experiments is statistically sound after it goes through the collaboration review process, but there are certainly poor inferences being made at the level of the individual physicist. I listened to at least a couple of confused conversations between smart particle physicists about whether frequentism or Bayesianism was "right".