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












3












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    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









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      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 1 hour ago









      uhohuhoh

      1264




      1264






















          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 1 hour 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

                    Knooppunt Holsloot

                    Image
                    Knooppunt Holsloot Kenmerken Wegen A37 × N34 Type knooppunt klaverblad Portaal     Verkeer & Vervoer Knooppunt Holsloot is een verkeersknooppunt op de kruising van de autosnelweg A37 en de N34 in Drenthe, tussen Emmen en Coevorden. Oorspronkelijk was deze aansluiting een afritconstructie van het type Haarlemmermeeraansluiting, zoals bij Knooppunt Hooipolder. Sinds 2002 is het knooppunt omgebouwd tot een volledig klaverblad. Als noviteit werd hier voor het eerst gebruikgemaakt van dimbare verlichting in plaats van de normale vaste tijden waarop de verlichting aan en uit gaat, wat een grote kostenbesparing opleverde. [1] Dat Holsloot als volwaardig knooppunt is uitgevoerd, waarbij alle verkeersstromen en afbuigingen ononderbroken kunnen doorgaan, is uitzonderlijk. Het betreft hier namelijk een aansluiting tussen een autosnelweg en niet-snelweg. Een vergelijkbare situatie treft men nabij Hoensbroek bij het knooppunt Ten Esschen.     Aa
                    Read more

                    Altaar (religie)

                    Image
                    Deel van de serie over kerkelijk gerei waaronder paramenten en liturgisch vaatwerk gebruikt in de liturgie Liturgisch vaatwerk Vasa sacra Miskelk · Pateen Kelklepeltje Ciborie · Monstrans Pyxis · Custodiale Vasa non sacra Ampullen · Wijwatervat Olievaatje Wierookvat · Ablutievat Paramenten Amict · Albe · Baarkleed · Cingel Tuniek · Dalmatiek · Fanon Kazuifel · Manipel · Stola Gremiale · Benedictievelum Mijter Koorkledij Rochet · Superplie Koorkap · Cappa magna Kovel Kelkgerei Bursa · Kelkvelum Ciborievelum Kerklinnen Corporale · Kelkdoekje Lavabodoekje · Palla Altaardwaal Kerkinterieur Altaar · Ambo Biechtstoel · Communiebank Doksaal · Doopvont Faldistorium Godslamp · Hoogaltaar Heilig Kruisaltaar Katheder · Preekstoel Sedilia Tabernakel · Volksaltaar Liturgische boeken Altaarmissaal Benedictionale · Brevier Evangeliarium · Evangelistarium Graduale · Kyriale Lectionarium Psalter · Rituaal Sacramentarium · Volksmissaal Overige Flambou
                    Read more

                    Gregoriusmis

                    Image
                    Een afbeelding van de Gregoriusmis uit een getijdenboek gemaakt in de zuidelijke Nederlanden tussen 1500 en 1525 Gregoriusmis, Meester van het Akense Altaar, ca. 1500-1525. Collectie Museum Catharijneconvent De Gregoriusmis of de Mis van Sint Gregorius is een motief in katholieke kunst, dat het eerst verscheen in de late Middeleeuwen en dat nog steeds werd gebruikt tijdens de contrareformatie. Paus Gregorius I (ca. 540-604) is afgebeeld, de H. Mis opdragend, terwijl Christus als de Man van Smarten verschijnt op het altaar dat voor Sint Gregorius staat. Volgens de legende had St. Gregorius gebeden om een teken voor een betwijfelaar van de transsubstantiatieleer, waarop de lijdende Christus tijdens het opdragen van de Mis verscheen om hem te overtuigen en waarbij zijn bloed in de altaarkelk liep. Vaak zijn ook de passiewerktuigen afgebeeld. Zie de categorie Mass of Saint Gregory van Wikimedia Commons voor mediabestanden over dit onderwerp. This page is onl
                    Read more