Not one point in our commentary is new, and our central complaints (like ending the nonsense we document) have been in the literature for generations, to little or no avail – e.g., see Rothman 1986 and Altman & Bland 1995, attached, and then the travesty of recent JAMA articles like the attached Brown et al. Our commentary is an early step toward revealing that sad reality. My own view is that this significance issue has been a massive problem in the sociology of science, hidden and often hijacked by those pundits under the guise of methodology or “statistical science” (a nearly oxymoronic term). because YES this is an issue of politics, ethics, and injustice!. YES we are campaigning and it’s long overdue. Otherwise scientific methodology would be validated, endorsed and prioritized based on who has the most popular Tweeter, Facebook or Instagram account. However, I think that they have no place on choosing and endorsing scientific methods. They do make sense for issues of politics, ethics, and injustice. Lists of signatories have a very different role.
#Graphpad prism 6 significance stars full
This takes effort, real debate, multiple painful iterations among co-authors, responsibility, undiluted attention to detailed arguments, and full commitment. It is one thing to ask for people to work on co-drafting a scientific article or comment. Leaving the scientific merits and drawbacks of your Comment aside, I am afraid that a campaign to collect signatures for what is a scientific method and statistical inference question sets a bad precedent. I am afraid that what you are doing at this point is not science, but campaigning. Also, he was bothered by the group-signed letter and wrote: He had some specific disagreements (see below for more on this). Is it appropriate to get hundreds of people to sign a letter of support for a scientific editorial?īrilliant Comment! I am extremely happy that you are publishing it and that it will certainly attract a lot of attention. I won’t copy out all the emails, but I’ll share enough to try to convey the sense of the conversation, and any readers are welcome to continue the discussion in the comments.ġ. So, the paper by Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, and Blake McShane that we discussed a few weeks ago has just appeared online as a comment piece in Nature, along with a letter with hundreds (or is it thousands?) of supporting signatures.įollowing the first circulation of that article, the authors of that article and some others of us had some email discussion that I thought might be of general interest.
0 kommentar(er)
