pull down to refresh

152 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Nov 2024 \ on: The Statistical Significance Scam science
For sure, many people, even in the science community do not properly understand statistics, p-values, or hypothesis testing.
Selection into publication is also a huge problem. If 100 studies are run on 100 random samples, all testing the same hypothesis H_0: \beta=0, H_1: \beta \neq 0, I think you should expect to get 5% of the studies with a p-value <0.05. If only studies with p<0.05 get published, then all the published studies will show a statistically significant relationship despite the 95 studies that didn't and weren't published.
(I think my above description is accurate, but I'd have to do some more review of my statistics foundations to confirm.)
write
preview
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @satgoob 12 Nov 2024
There have been controversies recently around people "P-hacking their studies:
For reference: "P-hacking is a term used to describe various techniques that researchers can use to increase the chances of finding statistically significant results in their study, even if the results are not actually meaningful." https://www.physiotutors.com/wiki/p-hacking/
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Nov 2024
Yeah, it's definitely an issue. Which is why people should not follow scientific studies uncritically. Science is useful but you have to understand the conditions under which it is produced.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Nov 2024
Slight addendum to my above post:
If the null hypothesis is true, you should expect 5% of the studies to have p<0.05.
reply