In the context of a listserv discussion about replication in psychology experiments, someone wrote: The current best estimate of the effect size is somewhere in between the original study and the replication’s reported value. This conciliatory, split-the-difference statement sounds reasonable, and it might well represent good politics in the context of a war over replications—but […]
Interesting comment thread at Basbøll’s blog regarding the difficult position of college writing instructors when confronted with blatant student plagiarism. Randall Westgren writes: I believe the easiest part of the patchwriting [plagiarism] phenomenon to understand is why writing instructors are leading the charge. Professor Howard is caught between a herd of high-value (i.e. full-tuition and […]
Macartan Humphreys sent me a Shiny app demonstrating you can get statistical significance from just about any pattern of random numbers. I posted it, and, in response, commenter Rahul wrote: It sure is a cute demo but it’s a bit like insinuating a doctor’s stethoscope is useless by demonstrating ten ways in which it can […]
What to think about in 2015: How can the principles of statistical quality control be applied to statistics education
Happy new year! A few years ago, Eric Loken and I wrote, Statisticians: When we teach, we don’t practice what we preach: As statisticians, we give firm guidance in our consulting and research on the virtues of random sampling, randomized treatment assignments, valid and reliable measurements, and clear specification of the statistical procedures that will […]
To slightly paraphrase the words of a New York Times columnist: I once read about a guy whose childhood was a steady calamity. He was afraid, unable to control his mind and self. But he became a writer and discovered he was magnificent at it. Through the act of writing, he could investigate his fears […]
John Cook writes: Some physicists say that you should always have an order-of-magnitude idea of what a result will be before you calculate it. This implies a belief that such estimates are usually possible, and that they provide a sanity check for calculations. And that’s true in physics, at least in mechanics. In probability, however, […]
(scheduled to appear in a few months, of course). I think you’ll like it. Or hate it. Depending on who you are.
Thomas Leeper points me to Diederik Stapel’s memoir, “Faking Science: A True Story of Academic Fraud,” translated by Nick Brown and available online for free download.
Richard Morey writes: On the tail of our previous paper about confidence intervals, showing that researchers tend to misunderstand the inferences one can draw from CIs, we [Morey, Rink Hoekstra, Jeffrey Rouder, Michael Lee, and EJ Wagenmakers] have another paper that we have just submitted which talks about the theory underlying inference by CIs. Our […]
One thing we’ve been discussing a lot lately is the discomfort many people—many researchers—feel about uncertainty. This was particularly notable in the reaction of psychologists Jessica Tracy and Alec Beall to our “garden of forking paths” paper, but really we see it all over: people find some pattern in their data and they don’t even […]