"What the use of P [the significance level] implies, therefore, is that a hypothesis that may be true may be rejected because it has not predicted observable results that have not occurred." (Harold Jeffreys, "Theory of Probability", 1939)
"Only by the analysis and interpretation of observations as they are made, and the examination of the larger implications of the results, is one in a satisfactory position to pose new experimental and theoretical questions of the greatest significance." (John A Wheeler, "Elementary Particle Physics", American Scientist, 1947)
"As usual we may make the errors of I) rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true, II) accepting the null hypothesis when it is false. But there is a third kind of error which is of interest because the present test of significance is tied up closely with the idea of making a correct decision about which distribution function has slipped furthest to the right. We may make the error of III) correctly rejecting the null hypothesis for the wrong reason." (Frederick Mosteller, "A k-Sample Slippage Test for an Extreme Population", The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19, 1948)
"Errors of the third kind happen in conventional tests of differences of means, but they are usually not considered, although their existence is probably recognized. It seems to the author that there may be several reasons for this among which are 1) a preoccupation on the part of mathematical statisticians with the formal questions of acceptance and rejection of null hypotheses without adequate consideration of the implications of the error of the third kind for the practical experimenter, 2) the rarity with which an error of the third kind arises in the usual tests of significance." (Frederick Mosteller, "A k-Sample Slippage Test for an Extreme Population", The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 19, 1948)
"If significance tests are required for still larger samples, graphical accuracy is insufficient, and arithmetical methods are advised. A word to the wise is in order here, however. Almost never does it make sense to use exact binomial significance tests on such data - for the inevitable small deviations from the mathematical model of independence and constant split have piled up to such an extent that the binomial variability is deeply buried and unnoticeable. Graphical treatment of such large samples may still be worthwhile because it brings the results more vividly to the eye." (Frederick Mosteller & John W Tukey, "The Uses and Usefulness of Binomial Probability Paper?", Journal of the American Statistical Association 44, 1949)
"One reason for preferring to present a confidence interval statement (where possible) is that the confidence interval, by its width, tells more about the reliance that can be placed on the results of the experiment than does a YES-NO test of significance." (Mary G Natrella, "The relation between confidence intervals and tests of significance", American Statistician 14, 1960)
"Confidence intervals give a feeling of the uncertainty of experimental evidence, and (very important) give it in the same units [...] as the original observations." (Mary G Natrella, "The relation between confidence intervals and tests of significance", American Statistician 14, 1960)
"The null-hypothesis significance test treats ‘acceptance’ or ‘rejection’ of a hypothesis as though these were decisions one makes. But a hypothesis is not something, like a piece of pie offered for dessert, which can be accepted or rejected by a voluntary physical action. Acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis is a cognitive process, a degree of believing or disbelieving which, if rational, is not a matter of choice but determined solely by how likely it is, given the evidence, that the hypothesis is true." (William W Rozeboom, "The fallacy of the null–hypothesis significance test", Psychological Bulletin 57, 1960)
"The null hypothesis of no difference has been judged to be no longer a sound or fruitful basis for statistical investigation. […] Significance tests do not provide the information that scientists need, and, furthermore, they are not the most effective method for analyzing and summarizing data." (Cherry A Clark, "Hypothesis Testing in Relation to Statistical Methodology", Review of Educational Research Vol. 33, 1963)
"The idea of knowledge as an improbable structure is still a good place to start. Knowledge, however, has a dimension which goes beyond that of mere information or improbability. This is a dimension of significance which is very hard to reduce to quantitative form. Two knowledge structures might be equally improbable but one might be much more significant than the other." (Kenneth E Boulding, "Beyond Economics: Essays on Society", 1968)
"Significance levels are usually computed and reported, but power and confidence limits are not. Perhaps they should be." (Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, "Belief in the law of small numbers", Psychological Bulletin 76(2), 1971)
"Science usually amounts to a lot more than blind trial and error. Good statistics consists of much more than just significance tests; there are more sophisticated tools available for the analysis of results, such as confidence statements, multiple comparisons, and Bayesian analysis, to drop a few names. However, not all scientists are good statisticians, or want to be, and not all people who are called scientists by the media deserve to be so described."
"It is usually wise to give a confidence interval for the parameter in which you are interested." (David S Moore & George P McCabe, "Introduction to the Practice of Statistics", 1989)
"I do not think that significance testing should be completely abandoned [...] and I don’t expect that it will be. But I urge researchers to provide estimates, with confidence intervals: scientific advance requires parameters with known reliability estimates. Classical confidence intervals are formally equivalent to a significance test, but they convey more information." (Nigel G Yoccoz, "Use, Overuse, and Misuse of Significance Tests in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology", Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America Vol. 72 (2), 1991)
"Whereas hypothesis testing emphasizes a very narrow question (‘Do the population means fail to conform to a specific pattern?’), the use of confidence intervals emphasizes a much broader question (‘What are the population means?’). Knowing what the means are, of course, implies knowing whether they fail to conform to a specific pattern, although the reverse is not true. In this sense, use of confidence intervals subsumes the process of hypothesis testing." (Geoffrey R Loftus, "On the tyranny of hypothesis testing in the social sciences", Contemporary Psychology 36, 1991)
"We should push for de-emphasizing some topics, such as statistical significance tests - an unfortunate carry-over from the traditional elementary statistics course. We would suggest a greater focus on confidence intervals - these achieve the aim of formal hypothesis testing, often provide additional useful information, and are not as easily misinterpreted." (Gerry Hahn et al, "The Impact of Six Sigma Improvement: A Glimpse Into the Future of Statistics", The American Statistician, 1999)
"[...] they [confidence limits] are rarely to be found in the literature. I suspect that the main reason they are not reported is that they are so embarrassingly large!" (Jacob Cohen, "The earth is round (p<.05)", American Psychologist 49, 1994)
"Given the important role that correlation plays in structural equation modeling, we need to understand the factors that affect establishing relationships among multivariable data points. The key factors are the level of measurement, restriction of range in data values (variability, skewness, kurtosis), missing data, nonlinearity, outliers, correction for attenuation, and issues related to sampling variation, confidence intervals, effect size, significance, sample size, and power." (Randall E Schumacker & Richard G Lomax, "A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling" 3rd Ed., 2010)
"Another way to secure statistical significance is to use the data to discover a theory. Statistical tests assume that the researcher starts with a theory, collects data to test the theory, and reports the results - whether statistically significant or not. Many people work in the other direction, scrutinizing the data until they find a pattern and then making up a theory that fits the pattern."
"There is a growing realization that reported 'statistically significant' claims in statistical publications are routinely mistaken. Researchers typically express the confidence in their data in terms of p-value: the probability that a perceived result is actually the result of random variation. The value of p (for 'probability') is a way of measuring the extent to which a data set provides evidence against a so-called null hypothesis. By convention, a p- value below 0.05 is considered a meaningful refutation of the null hypothesis; however, such conclusions are less solid than they appear." (Andrew Gelman & Eric Loken, "The Statistical Crisis in Science", American Scientist Vol. 102(6), 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment