.
This is Part II of my commentary on Stephen Senn’s guest post, Be Careful What You Wish For. In this follow-up, I take up two topics:
(1) A terminological point raised in the comments to Part I, and
(2) A broader concern about how a popular reform movement reinforces precisely the mistaken construal Senn warns against.
But first, a question—are we listening? Because what underlies what Senn is saying is subtle, and yet what’s at stake is quite important for today’s statistical controversies. It’s not just a matter of which of four common construals is most apt for the population effect we wish to have high power to detect.[1] As I hear Senn, he’s also flagging a misunderstanding that allows some statistical reformers to (wrongly) dictate what statistical significance testers “wish” for in the first place. Continue reading
Error Statistics Philosophy 