bcdarwin

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by bcdarwin 6y ago

   Exactly - a p-hack is a form of misreporting, so isn't easy to detect at the level of individual studies. However, p-hacking isn't the only threat to replicability: in this case the authors have reported a large set of tests, so
2. 2.▲
   by bcdarwin 6y ago

   I am not claiming that the possibility is excluded, just that it is not demonstrated here. > In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with
3. 3.▲
   by bcdarwin 6y ago

   I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper. You can invent post hoc justifications for almost any positive conclusion (although this one is weak since the a
4. 4.▲
   by bcdarwin 6y ago

   Brief comments suggesting this result is p-hacking are being downvoted, but I highly doubt this result will replicate. There's just so many chances (men/women/everyone, light, hunger) to reject the null hypothesis, no attemp
5. 5.▲
   by bcdarwin 6y ago

   For a more conservative FP-inspired R library there's `lenses` (disclaimer: I am a coauthor), which is available on CRAN, accessible to users familiar with R indexing syntax, tidyverse-compatible, and has gentle introductory documenta