The ego has landed! The .05 level of statistical significance is soft (fisher) rather than hard (neyman/pearson)

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):207-208 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Chow pays lip service (but not much more!) to Type I errors and thus opts for a hard (all-or-none) .05 level of significance (Superego of Neyman/Pearson theory; Gigerenzer 1993). Most working scientists disregard Type I errors and thus utilize a soft .05 level (Ego of Fisher; Gigerenzer 1993), which lets them report gradations of significance (e.g., p.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,174

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts.David Widerker - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
Models and Statistical Inference: The Controversy Between Fisher and Neyman–Pearson.Johannes Lenhard - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):69-91.
Resolving Neyman's Paradox.Max Albert - 2002 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1):69-76.
Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman–Pearson Philosophy of Induction.Deborah G. Mayo & Aris Spanos - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):323-357.
The Logic of Tests of Significance.Stephen Spielman - 1974 - Philosophy of Science 41 (3):211-226.
Of Nulls and Norms.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:280 - 290.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
13 (#759,612)

6 months
1 (#413,740)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references