What does “Scientists rise up against statistical significance” mean? (Comment in Nature)












2












$begingroup$


The title of the Comment in Nature Scientists rise up against statistical significance begins with:




Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, Blake McShane and more than 800 signatories call for an end to hyped claims and the dismissal of possibly crucial effects.




and later contains statements like:




Again, we are not advocating a ban on P values, confidence intervals or other statistical measures — only that we should not treat them categorically. This includes dichotomization as statistically significant or not, as well as categorization based on other statistical measures such as Bayes factors.




I think I can grasp that the image below does not say that the two studies disagree because one "rules out" no effect while the other does not. But the article seems to go into much more depth that I can understand.



Towards the end there seems to be a summary in four points. Is it possible to summarize these in even simpler terms for those of us who read statistics rather than write it?




When talking about compatibility intervals, bear in mind four things.




  • First, just because the interval gives the values most compatible with the data, given the assumptions, it doesn’t mean values outside it are incompatible; they are just less compatible...


  • Second, not all values inside are equally compatible with the data, given the assumptions...


  • Third, like the 0.05 threshold from which it came, the default 95% used to compute intervals is itself an arbitrary convention...


  • Last, and most important of all, be humble: compatibility assessments hinge on the correctness of the statistical assumptions used to compute the interval...






Nature: Scientists rise up against statistical significance






statistical-significance p-value bias







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    The title of the Comment in Nature Scientists rise up against statistical significance begins with:




    Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, Blake McShane and more than 800 signatories call for an end to hyped claims and the dismissal of possibly crucial effects.




    and later contains statements like:




    Again, we are not advocating a ban on P values, confidence intervals or other statistical measures — only that we should not treat them categorically. This includes dichotomization as statistically significant or not, as well as categorization based on other statistical measures such as Bayes factors.




    I think I can grasp that the image below does not say that the two studies disagree because one "rules out" no effect while the other does not. But the article seems to go into much more depth that I can understand.



    Towards the end there seems to be a summary in four points. Is it possible to summarize these in even simpler terms for those of us who read statistics rather than write it?




    When talking about compatibility intervals, bear in mind four things.




    • First, just because the interval gives the values most compatible with the data, given the assumptions, it doesn’t mean values outside it are incompatible; they are just less compatible...


    • Second, not all values inside are equally compatible with the data, given the assumptions...


    • Third, like the 0.05 threshold from which it came, the default 95% used to compute intervals is itself an arbitrary convention...


    • Last, and most important of all, be humble: compatibility assessments hinge on the correctness of the statistical assumptions used to compute the interval...






    Nature: Scientists rise up against statistical significance






    statistical-significance p-value bias







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      The title of the Comment in Nature Scientists rise up against statistical significance begins with:




      Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, Blake McShane and more than 800 signatories call for an end to hyped claims and the dismissal of possibly crucial effects.




      and later contains statements like:




      Again, we are not advocating a ban on P values, confidence intervals or other statistical measures — only that we should not treat them categorically. This includes dichotomization as statistically significant or not, as well as categorization based on other statistical measures such as Bayes factors.




      I think I can grasp that the image below does not say that the two studies disagree because one "rules out" no effect while the other does not. But the article seems to go into much more depth that I can understand.



      Towards the end there seems to be a summary in four points. Is it possible to summarize these in even simpler terms for those of us who read statistics rather than write it?




      When talking about compatibility intervals, bear in mind four things.




      • First, just because the interval gives the values most compatible with the data, given the assumptions, it doesn’t mean values outside it are incompatible; they are just less compatible...


      • Second, not all values inside are equally compatible with the data, given the assumptions...


      • Third, like the 0.05 threshold from which it came, the default 95% used to compute intervals is itself an arbitrary convention...


      • Last, and most important of all, be humble: compatibility assessments hinge on the correctness of the statistical assumptions used to compute the interval...






      Nature: Scientists rise up against statistical significance






      statistical-significance p-value bias







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      The title of the Comment in Nature Scientists rise up against statistical significance begins with:




      Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, Blake McShane and more than 800 signatories call for an end to hyped claims and the dismissal of possibly crucial effects.




      and later contains statements like:




      Again, we are not advocating a ban on P values, confidence intervals or other statistical measures — only that we should not treat them categorically. This includes dichotomization as statistically significant or not, as well as categorization based on other statistical measures such as Bayes factors.




      I think I can grasp that the image below does not say that the two studies disagree because one "rules out" no effect while the other does not. But the article seems to go into much more depth that I can understand.



      Towards the end there seems to be a summary in four points. Is it possible to summarize these in even simpler terms for those of us who read statistics rather than write it?




      When talking about compatibility intervals, bear in mind four things.




      • First, just because the interval gives the values most compatible with the data, given the assumptions, it doesn’t mean values outside it are incompatible; they are just less compatible...


      • Second, not all values inside are equally compatible with the data, given the assumptions...


      • Third, like the 0.05 threshold from which it came, the default 95% used to compute intervals is itself an arbitrary convention...


      • Last, and most important of all, be humble: compatibility assessments hinge on the correctness of the statistical assumptions used to compute the interval...






      Nature: Scientists rise up against statistical significance






      statistical-significance p-value bias




      statistical-significance p-value bias






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 43 mins ago









      uhohuhoh

      1214




      1214






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          I'll try.




          1. The confidence interval (which they rename compatibility interval) shows the values of the parameter that are most compatible with the data. But that doesn't mean the values outside the interval are absolutely incompatible with the data.

          2. Values near the middle of the confidence (compatibili5y) interval are more compatible with the data than values near the ends of the interval.

          3. 95% is just a convention. You can compute 90% or 99% or any% intervals.

          4. The confidence/compatibility intervals are only helpful if the experiment was done properly, if the analysis was done according to a preset plan, and the data conform with the assumption of the analysis methods. If you've got bad data analyzed badly, the compatibility interval is not meaningful or helpful.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "65"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f398646%2fwhat-does-scientists-rise-up-against-statistical-significance-mean-comment-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$

            I'll try.




            1. The confidence interval (which they rename compatibility interval) shows the values of the parameter that are most compatible with the data. But that doesn't mean the values outside the interval are absolutely incompatible with the data.

            2. Values near the middle of the confidence (compatibili5y) interval are more compatible with the data than values near the ends of the interval.

            3. 95% is just a convention. You can compute 90% or 99% or any% intervals.

            4. The confidence/compatibility intervals are only helpful if the experiment was done properly, if the analysis was done according to a preset plan, and the data conform with the assumption of the analysis methods. If you've got bad data analyzed badly, the compatibility interval is not meaningful or helpful.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              I'll try.




              1. The confidence interval (which they rename compatibility interval) shows the values of the parameter that are most compatible with the data. But that doesn't mean the values outside the interval are absolutely incompatible with the data.

              2. Values near the middle of the confidence (compatibili5y) interval are more compatible with the data than values near the ends of the interval.

              3. 95% is just a convention. You can compute 90% or 99% or any% intervals.

              4. The confidence/compatibility intervals are only helpful if the experiment was done properly, if the analysis was done according to a preset plan, and the data conform with the assumption of the analysis methods. If you've got bad data analyzed badly, the compatibility interval is not meaningful or helpful.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                I'll try.




                1. The confidence interval (which they rename compatibility interval) shows the values of the parameter that are most compatible with the data. But that doesn't mean the values outside the interval are absolutely incompatible with the data.

                2. Values near the middle of the confidence (compatibili5y) interval are more compatible with the data than values near the ends of the interval.

                3. 95% is just a convention. You can compute 90% or 99% or any% intervals.

                4. The confidence/compatibility intervals are only helpful if the experiment was done properly, if the analysis was done according to a preset plan, and the data conform with the assumption of the analysis methods. If you've got bad data analyzed badly, the compatibility interval is not meaningful or helpful.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                I'll try.




                1. The confidence interval (which they rename compatibility interval) shows the values of the parameter that are most compatible with the data. But that doesn't mean the values outside the interval are absolutely incompatible with the data.

                2. Values near the middle of the confidence (compatibili5y) interval are more compatible with the data than values near the ends of the interval.

                3. 95% is just a convention. You can compute 90% or 99% or any% intervals.

                4. The confidence/compatibility intervals are only helpful if the experiment was done properly, if the analysis was done according to a preset plan, and the data conform with the assumption of the analysis methods. If you've got bad data analyzed badly, the compatibility interval is not meaningful or helpful.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 30 mins ago









                Harvey MotulskyHarvey Motulsky

                10.9k44485




                10.9k44485






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f398646%2fwhat-does-scientists-rise-up-against-statistical-significance-mean-comment-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
                    Read more

                    Berlina muro

                    Image
                    La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
                    Read more

                    Berlina aerponto

                    Image
                    Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
                    Read more