Women in science need to learn more about how statistics work. If I published results this low in significance as tho they were real I could have 'proved' eighty different insane things by now. To explain why this is bad:https://twitter.com/EmilyKhazan/status/1323292996062842883 …
-
-
But also it's extra terrible that this author reported a meaningful result when she admits it's not statistically significant! I'm physically recoiling from this idea. How are they training people in school that this is something they think is ok?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I love to see someone understand the importance of statistics and provide examples of it and how to use it. Thank you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this is really what should be taught in science ethics classes; https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1291065500257013760?s=21 …https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1291065500257013760 …
-
but in the current culture of the broader academy, the incentive is to do what gets you published; it’s often not really the researcher’s fault.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is so, so important in statistical analysis! If you consider your results significant with a 95% chance — which is the default — by DEFINITION one in 20 experiments will be a false positive. If you keep testing random stuff, you will eventually find “positives”.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.