Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Weak statistical standards implicated in scientific irreproducibility-> 1

Submitted by ananyo
ananyo (2519492) writes "The plague of non-reproducibility in science may be mostly due to scientists’ use of weak statistical tests, as shown by an innovative method developed by statistician Valen Johnson, at Texas A&M University. Johnson found that a P value of 0.05 or less — commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in many fields including social science — still meant that as many as 17–25% of such findings are probably false. He advocates for scientists to use more stringent P values of 0.005 or less to support their findings, and thinks that the use of the 0.05 standard might account for most of the problem of non-reproducibility in science — even more than other issues, such as biases and scientific misconduct."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Weak statistical standards implicated in scientific irreproducibility

Comments Filter:
  • commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in many fields including social science

    Note, how the above wording (emphasis mine) suggests, the weak methods used in many fields — social science among them.

    The TFA, however, is different:

    commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in fields such as social science

    The article, obviously, singles-out "social science" in particular... Why would the submitter seek to spin the wording to soften the blow against "social science"?

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...