you can peak every time if you do it Bayes — 100% no p-hacking guaranteed 

-
-
Yes, see http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/jruiter/downloads/statisticsworkshop/Schoenbrodt_Sequential_BF.pdf … by
@nicebread303 . Gelman's solution is close your eye's, go 'lalala' and pretend type 1 errors don't exist -
Really? OK, I'll read.
-
Hmm, I'm a bit disappointed — got anything that's actually a coherent piece that doesn't require me to guess what was said along w/ slides?
-
Could you point me to where
@nicebread303 says multiple comparisons are a problem? Slides seem to imply it's fine — no? -
See https://osf.io/w3s3s . Multiple peaking increases rate of misleading evidence, but only towards an upper limit (not 100% as with p)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or more formally: if you never test a hypothesis, you never make an error. Only estimate. It's a solution, but not in my field
-
You're saying Gelman never tests hypotheses?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.