Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/02/15/pre-specified-outcomes.html
…
Medical journals still worship at the altar of frequentist statistics with the p-value being the holy grail. Bayesian statistics are being considered now, especially in oncology studies since a myriad of combinations of different drugs must be evaluated.
Also, rejecting the null hypothesis with a statistically significant p-value doesn’t prove the drug you’re testing is the cat’s pajamas. We have “fiction” and “non-fiction” books, not “fiction” and “truth” books. Strictly speaking, in the criminal justice system folks are “innocent” (the null hypothesis) or “not-innocent.”
Some of these disciplines, like psychology, are just rotten to the core. Last time a statistician tried to point out bad practices on the part of a psychologist, the psych community rallied around the offender, and not only refused to accept that there was anything wrong with the findings, but referred to the criticism as " methodological terrorism." We need to stop calling these people "scientists " and start calling them out on thei bullshit.
Well of course - otherwise, the sheeple might find out about the thimerosal in the chemtrails!
PZ Myers posted about this also.
There should certainly be more rigour in reporting what you intended to find, and what you actually find. But the fact that they switched doesn’t imply dishonesty.
A major point of a study is to explore a question you don’t know the answer to. Discovering something that leads to you a different question is an expected outcome.
Surely they publish the letter bits in their fraternal journal ‘CONSORT, Please!’ [Puts very small pin in it.]
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.