Some bloglinks for my LSE talk tomorrow: “The Statistical Replication Crisis: Paradoxes and Scapegoats”

Popper talk May 10 locationIn my Popper talk tomorrow today (in London), I will discuss topics in philosophy of statistics in relation to:  the 2016 ASA document on P-values, and recent replication research in psychology. For readers interested in links from this blog, see:

I. My commentary on the ASA document on P-values (with links to the ASA document):

Don’t Throw Out the Error Control Baby with the Bad Statistics Bathwater”

A Small P-value Indicates that the Results are Due to Chance Alone: Fallacious or not: More on the ASA P-value Doc”

“P-Value Madness: A Puzzle About the Latest Test Ban, or ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”

II. Posts on replication research in psychology:

Repligate Returns (or, the Non Significance of Nonsignificant Results Are the New Significant Results)

This includes links to:

Some Ironies in the Replication Crisis in Social Psychology

The Paradox of Replication and the Vindication of the P-value, but She Can Go Deeper”

“Out Damned Pseudoscience: Nonsignificant Results Are the New Significant Results” 

For other topics on PhilStat, statistical controversies, individual statisticians (as well as fraudsters, e.g., Stapel, Potti, and fraudbusters, e.g., Simonsohn), please search this blog.

Categories: Metablog, P-values, replication research, reproducibility, Statistics | 7 Comments

Post navigation

7 thoughts on “Some bloglinks for my LSE talk tomorrow: “The Statistical Replication Crisis: Paradoxes and Scapegoats”

  1. I wish I were in London to hear your Popper lecture; will a podcast or transcript be made available?

  2. I would like to be in your conference. thanks for the references. good luck.

  3. Thanks for posting these. They’re helpful!

  4. On the “Macbeth Effect”, do you think that unscrambling soap related words would alter how morally wrong you would score the kinds of questions they ask?

    Is there even such a thing as measuring degree of immorality by numbers? By these numbers? I haven’t included the scrambling of sentences with soap related words which is supposed to be the “manipulation”–imposing a ‘situated cognition’ of cleanliness.

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: