Effect size is significantly more important than statistical significance

Re:Effect size is significantly more important than statisti... by setgree on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @12:01AM (#28535129)

> or a p value of something like p = 0.0001

This has been proposed [0], albeit for a threshold of p < 0.005.

Here's Andy Gelman and others arguing otherwise [1]. They also got like 800 scientists to sign on to the general idea of no longer using statistical significance at all [2].

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0189-z

[1] http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/ab...

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Effect size is significantly more important than statisti... by LeonB on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @03:05AM (#28536129)

Given the (estimated) number of scientists in the world and their general propensity to sign on to something… is 800 scientists a significant amount?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Effect size is significantly more important than statisti... by setgree on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @11:58AM (#28540732)

I don't know, and it's a fair point; I think I should have just summarised the follow-up article as "here's some follow-up by the authors for context"

[ Parent | on HN ]