I have read the book. There are occasional good points, but more points that sound like he just doesn’t understand. A lot of it reads like a rant more than reasoned argument/explanation. (If this is too short a review, see Christian Robert’s at http://statisticsforum.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-cult-of-statistical-significance-book-review/)

]]>Not sure which of Ioannidis’ issues you are thinking of. If it’s sampling to a foregone conclusion, that’s out, because in the Higgs experiments the amount of data to be collected was set in advance.

I don’t like statistical significance either.

]]>I think this is over the edge, even for him. Must be needing to stir the pot of p-value hysteria.

http://errorstatistics.com/2012/08/25/did-higgs-physicists-miss-an-opportunity-by-not-consulting-more-with-statisticians/

increasing the stringency of the statistical significance filter is the wrong way to go about addressing the problems Ioannidis raises, because it worsens Ioannidis’s _other_ complaint about effect overestimation.

I don’t like giving Ioannidis credit for these critcisims because they’re not novel, but unfortunately everyone is most familiar with. Put out papers with provocative titles and everyone reads them I guess …

]]>Requiring 5 sigmas doesn’t address Ziliak’s concerns – that statistical significance is the wrong thing to assess.

NB I do agree that Ziliak misses the bigger point, that even if one views statistical significance as the wrong thing, it can still be useful.

]]>