Hmmm, I am still figuring this out as I take the course, but to respond to your thoughts:
I think your formulation makes sense. p-values can tell us when to pay attention to our results, e.g. if it’s “expected” or not, to see a difference as large as what we’ve observed, assuming the null hypothesis is true. (As I mention, there are theoretical reasons this breaks down in the limit because the null hypothesis is technically never true, but I think this is the real-world use of p-values, as most sample sizes aren’t that big anyway.)
Yeah, I know certain areas in biology and medicine have also been hit by these issues, but I don’t have the sources at hand to back up those claims, so I tried to make more defensible ones for now.
“why is X is bad” to “how X can be much better”?
Is this about a specific sentence in the post, or more about the general framing of the issue?
That specific statement. I think the general framing of the issue is good and (but I am not perhaps the right person to assess) seems to get people viewing/interpreting/applying better.
As for the other areas of science, probably doesn’t really matter as I don’t see how this is a problem about what is studied (underlying source of data) as it is about the application of tools to understand data.
Hmmm, I am still figuring this out as I take the course, but to respond to your thoughts:
I think your formulation makes sense. p-values can tell us when to pay attention to our results, e.g. if it’s “expected” or not, to see a difference as large as what we’ve observed, assuming the null hypothesis is true. (As I mention, there are theoretical reasons this breaks down in the limit because the null hypothesis is technically never true, but I think this is the real-world use of p-values, as most sample sizes aren’t that big anyway.)
Yeah, I know certain areas in biology and medicine have also been hit by these issues, but I don’t have the sources at hand to back up those claims, so I tried to make more defensible ones for now.
Is this about a specific sentence in the post, or more about the general framing of the issue?
That specific statement. I think the general framing of the issue is good and (but I am not perhaps the right person to assess) seems to get people viewing/interpreting/applying better.
As for the other areas of science, probably doesn’t really matter as I don’t see how this is a problem about what is studied (underlying source of data) as it is about the application of tools to understand data.