Science:Social Sciences
In this episode Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05.
Stuff they cover:
A summary of the paper and how they decided on 0.005.
Whether raising the threshold the best way to improve reproducibility?
Is 0.005 too stringent?
Would this new threshold unfairly favour “super” labs?
If we keep shifting the number does any threshold really matter?
Dan and James’ first impressions of the paper
A crash course on Mediterranean taxation systems
What would a 0.005 threshold practically mean for researchers?
Links
The paper https://osf.io/mky9j/
ENIGMA consortium http://enigma.ini.usc.edu
Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/
view more
More Episodes
103: Swiping right
2020-03-02
2020-03-02
102: Master of none
2020-02-17
2020-02-17
101: Punishing research misconduct
2020-02-03
2020-02-03
99: Science advocacy
2020-01-06
2020-01-06
97: Slow science
2019-12-02
2019-12-02
96: The chaotic state of doctoral research
2019-11-18
2019-11-18
94: Predicting the replicability of research
2019-10-21
2019-10-21
92: Chaos in the brickyard
2019-09-16
2019-09-16
90: Mo data mo problems
2019-08-19
2019-08-19
88: The pomodoro episode
2019-07-15
2019-07-15
86: Should I stay or should I go?
2019-06-17
2019-06-17
Get this podcast on your
phone, FREE
