Respuesta :
I admire Uri Simonsohn's work and that of his collaborators, but I dislike the term "p-hacking" because it implies a desire to cheat.
What's the logic behind my viewpoint?
The image of p-hacking is of a researcher running test after test on data until he or she reaches the elusive "p less than.05."
Multiple comparisons, however, can be a problem, as Eric Loken and I discuss in our paper on the garden of forking paths, even when there is no "fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypothesis was posed ahead of time.
I'm concerned that the term "p-hacking" has two negative connotations:
First, it implies that the many researchers who use p-values incorrectly are cheating or "hacking," even though I suspect the majority are simply misinformed; and second, it can lead honest but confused researchers to believe that these p-value problems don't affect them because they don't "p-hack."
I prefer the term "garden of forking paths" because (a) it does not imply cheating and (b) it conveys the idea that the paths are all out there, which is essential when reasoning about p-values, which are explicit statements about what would've happened if the data had been different.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't be discussing any of this. But, since we are, I'd rather keep the insights of Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn while dropping the term "p-hacking".
To learn more about Hacking and Hacker, visit: https://brainly.com/question/23294592
#SPJ4
