I recently read a similar thing in the book "Data Analysis and Graphs Using R" from Mainload & Braun. I will reproduce it here. In fact, it is already a quotation from Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical Science 6:100-116.
"Statisticians classically asked the wrong question - and were willing o answer with a lie, one that was often a downright lie. They asked 'Are the effects of A and B different?' and they were willing to say 'no'. All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B are always different - in some decimal place - for every A and B. Thus, asking 'Are the effects different?' is foolish. What we should be answering first is 'Can we tell the direction in which the effects of A differ from the effects of B?' In other words, can we be confident about the direction from A to B? Is it 'up', 'down', or 'uncertain'? Latter, in the words of the book author: "Turkey argues that we should never conclude that we 'accept the null hypothesis'. --- Wirt Atmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > I just purchased David Anderson's new book, "Model > Based Inference in the Life > Sciences: a primer on evidence," and although I've > only had the opportunity to > read just the first two chapters, I wanted to write > and express my enthusiasm > for both the book and especially its first chapter. > > David and Ken Burnham once bought me lunch, and > because my loyalties are easily > purchased, I may be somewhat biased in my approach > towards the book, but David > writes something very important in the first chapter > that I have been mildly > railing against for sometime now too: the uncritical > overuse of null hypotheses > in ecology. Indeed, I believe this to be such an > important topic that I wish he > had extended the section for several more pages. > > What he does write is this, in part: > > "It is important to realize that null hypothesis > testing was *not* what > Chamberlin wanted or advocated. We so often > conclude, essentially, 'We rejected > the null hypothesis that was uninteresting or > implausible in the first place, P > < 0.05.' Chamberlin wanted an *array* of *plausible* > hypotheses derived and > subjected to careful evaluation. We often fail to > fault the trivial null > hypotheses so often published in scientific > journals. In most cases, the null > hypothesis is hardly plausible and this makes the > study vacuous from the > outset... > > "C.R. Rao (2004), the famous Indian statistician, > recently said it well, '...in > current practice of testing a null hypothesis, we > are asking the wrong question > and getting a confusing answer'" (2008, pp. 11-12). > > This is so completely different than the > extraordinarily successful approach > that has been adopted by physics. > > In ecology, an experiment is most normally designed > so its results may be > statistically tested against a null hypothesis. In > this procedure, data analysis > is primarily a posteriori process, but this is an > intrinsically weak test > philosophically. In the end, you rarely understand > more about the processes in > force than you did before you began. But the > analyses characteristic of physics > don’t work that way. > > In 1964, Richard Feynman, in a lecture to students > at Cornell that's available > on YouTube, explained the standard procedure that > has been adopted by > experimental physics in this manner: > > "How would we look for a new law? In general we look > for a new law by the > following process. First, we guess it. (laughter) > Then we... Don't laugh. That's > the damned truth. Then we compute the consequences > of the guess... to see if > this is right, to see if this law we guessed is > right, to see what it would > imply. And then we compare those computation results > to nature. Or we say to > compare it to experiment, or to experience. Compare > it directly with > observations to see if it works. > > "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In > that simple statement is the > key to science. It doesn't make a difference how > beautiful your guess is. It > doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who > made the guess or what his name > is... (laughter) If it disagrees with experiment, > it's wrong. That's all there > is to it." > > -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY > > In physics, the model comes first, not afterwards, > and that small difference > underlies the whole of the success that physics has > had in explaining the > mechanics of the world that surrounds us. > > The entire array of plausible hypotheses that were > advocated by Chamberlin don't > all have to present during the first experimental > attempt at verification of the > first hypothesis; they can occur sequentially over a > period of years. > > As David continues, "We must encourage and reward > hard thinking. There must be a > premium on thinking, innovation, synthesis and > creativity" (p. 12), and this > hard thinking must be done in advance of the > experiment. Science is a predictive > enterprise, not some form of mindless after-the-fact > exercise in number > crunching. > > Although expressed in a different format, David > Anderson is saying the same > thing as Richard Feynman, and I very much > congratulate him for it. > > Wirt Atmar > Matheus C. Carvalho PhD student Kitasato University - School of Fishery Sciences Japan Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/
