tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post3024762974683400703..comments2024-03-27T03:22:41.073-07:00Comments on Psych Your Mind: SPSP 2012: Watchdogs, Witch-hunts, and What to do about False-Positive FindingsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-12324035556897696452013-04-09T16:26:08.336-07:002013-04-09T16:26:08.336-07:00I have an interest in p-hacking from the opposite ...I have an interest in p-hacking from the opposite perspective - i.e., when can we rely on null data to support "evidence of absence" or "affirmative evidence against harm." I am a consultant who works with various clients who are accused of harming people with products and exposures.<br /><br />I suspect lots of the science used to support my adversaries' cases is flawed based on (inadvertent p-hacking).<br /><br />This is a very interesting topic to me.scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801764921190310148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-3344814315190985682013-01-24T09:44:00.438-08:002013-01-24T09:44:00.438-08:00Instead of wasting resources on witch hunts, maybe...Instead of wasting resources on witch hunts, maybe listen to Paul Meehl and stop relying on p-values in the first place. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-30592774961065320092012-08-06T15:48:19.042-07:002012-08-06T15:48:19.042-07:00"Finally, isn’t putting greater emphasis on e..."Finally, isn’t putting greater emphasis on exact replications a more parsimonious solution? If a person’s findings can be replicated, then by definition, the findings are real."<br /><br />But what if they can't be replicated? Null findings are difficult to publish. I remember a lecturer suggesting that 'psychology is a TypeI error'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-42264540710120249512012-01-30T19:47:14.685-08:002012-01-30T19:47:14.685-08:00Hi Dennis, these are some interesting and innovati...Hi Dennis, these are some interesting and innovative ways to solve the false-positive findings problem in psychology.<br /><br />Thanks for reading!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-39155401867470837212012-01-28T12:05:41.718-08:002012-01-28T12:05:41.718-08:00Some system for rewarding researchers who do repli...Some system for rewarding researchers who do replications or reviews or meta-analyses might be called for. As of now, there's too much emphasis on originality.<br /><br />Of course, groundbreaking findings advance science, but our enthusiasm for them needs to be kept in check. <br /><br />What if there were some collectively maintained database all a field's major journals participated in keeping up to date, on which every theory was catalogued along with some sort of rating based on how many times the findings supporting it have been replicated? <br /><br />Researchers could go to the database and see if the idea they're studying has been looked into before and by how many other researchers. Contradictions could be highlighted and used to encourage studies to sort them out. <br /><br />Most important, the rating based on replication (and N-size) could serve as a guide to how much credence ought to be placed on the ideas.Dennis J. Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.com