Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

« what is rigor? | Main | results blind vs. results bling* »


David Colquhoun

You don't need to go full Bayesian. But you can;t escape from Bayes, The prior probability has a huge effect on the false positive rate. The great problem is that you never have a good numerical value for the prior probability. I think that the best way to get round this dilemma is to calculate the prior probability that would be needed in order to give you an acceptable false positive rate.

For example, if you observe P = 0.05, then if you want to limit the false positive rate to 5 %, you would have to assume that you were 87% sure that there was a real effect before the experiment was done. That's clearly preposterously high.

For details, see http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/13/144337


"show us the pre-registration"

Yes! Thank you so much for adding this, in my opinion and reasoning, crucial aspect of pre-registration!!

If you don't let the reader be able to see this information, it is not really pre-registered at all as far as i am concerned.

If you don't draw the line at this point in time concerning the availability of pre-registration information to the reader of a paper, i fear we will be going down a slippery slope.

Please don't let "confirmatory findings" become the new QRP which replaces the old QRP "we hypothesized".

The comments to this entry are closed.