follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Science communication, micro & macro | Main | Do Type S and Type M errors reflect confirmation bias?! »
Sunday
Mar182018

Weekend update: What's *your* favorite "p-value/NHST fallacy" paper?

Here is mine:  

Rozeboom, W.W. The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin 57, 416-428 (1960).


The appeal for me is based in part of the age of the paper & in part on the clear & compelling exposition, including a cool running illustration.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

If I may be allowed to widen the request to "inductive inference falacy" papers, then my new favorite is:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12052/

What will be demonstrated here is that there can be no inductively complete calculus. The result pertains to no particular calculus of inductive inference, but to the prospects of a broad class of them to be characterized below. The class includes the probability calculus favoured by the Bayesians.

March 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970

But I didn't find it, so must give due credit to the source, Andrew Gelman - great to see him here again:

http://www.slate.com/technology/2018/03/how-a-brief-history-of-time-changed-our-perception-of-physics-and-science.html
"...They were using the same sort of analysis that non-joking political scientists use in making claims such as "Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans"...."

March 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PS sorry the second link has been moved, this is the correct link:
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/07/24/too-good-to-be-true-the-scientific-mass-production-of-spurious-statistical-significance/

March 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>