There is a general belief that science progresses over time and given that the number of scientists is increasing, this is a reasonable first approximation. The use of statistics in ecology has bee…

A blog post by Charles Krebs complements my previous posts on P-values and reminds us that statistical analysis and models are tools in our search for understanding. In the end what matters are the “new insights” as Krebs writes, or more boldly as I sometimes say “ideas are what matters, data just let us imagine and assess those new ideas.”

I earlier mentioned that a high-ranking journal in Psychology called “Basic and Applied Social Psychology” has banned the use of P-values. Today, I came across some additional material on this question. First of all, the controversial editorial where the decision was announced.

A paper, published in this journal, giving guidelines on the best way of presenting results without use of P-values. The paper by Geoff Cumming, titled “The New Statistics: Why and How” makes a good argument for using confidence intervals and other descriptive statistics in place of P-values.

He also has a series of videos in YouTube from which the three linked to below are related to the use (and misuse) of P-values. For my liking he does not make a clear enough distinction between the problem inherent to P-values (that they discard a lot of information to reach a true/false decision) and those problems due to the misuse and misinterpretation of tests of significance. He does mention the difference, but you need to keep your eyes and ears open to get this out of his presentations.

In addition a blog and podcast of a round table complete the discussion of this issue giving a bit wider account of the controversy surrounding the use of P-value.