Scientists rise up against statistical significance

Re:Scientists rise up against statistical significance by nradov on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @11:27PM (#19449068)

In social sciences if the effects aren't clear and readily apparent without quibbling over whether p<0.05 or p<0.01 is the right standard then perhaps the whole thing is a waste of time. If our experimental techniques are insufficient for dealing with multiple factors and complex webs of causality then why bother?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists rise up against statistical significance by light_hue_1 on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @11:39PM (#19449113)

How clear or important the effect is has nothing at all to do with a p-value. I can have p < 10^(-10) and still have an effect that is so weak that it's meaningless. The confusion you're having so pervasive and a big part of the problem. You have to use effect sizes in order to measure this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists rise up against statistical significance by nradov on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @11:50PM (#19449160)

No I'm not confused by the distinction between p-values and effect sizes, which is why I intentionally used the phrase "clear and readily apparent".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists rise up against statistical significance by ordu on Thursday March 21, 2019 @07:07AM (#19450921)

Science is a coordinated effort of many people. Scientists needs ability to communicate any partial knowledge they found.

[ Parent | on HN ]