Well-put! It would be great if people (particularly reviewers) always kept this in mind.
--Ruchira On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:57 AM, James J. Roper <jjro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been meaning to comment here too. > > When I teach statistics, my goal is to give the graduate students a > "toolbox" if you will, of useful ways to test ideas. More complex > statistics comes later. In teaching, I use the idea of testing hypotheses, > with a very important caveat. Both, null and alternative hypotheses have > to > be biologically sensible and biologically possible. I know I find many > published papers that gloss over the null, but it turns out, on deeper > inspection, that it was not a possibility and so refuting it was > unavoidable. > > Apply that idea, that the null also must be reasonable, logical and > possible, and you may find that many null hypotheses are none of those. > > Jim > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 13:13, Kevin Mueller <kem...@psu.edu> wrote: > > > If we iteratively modify our hypotheses through the process of data > > collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, how different is > this > > process from "observational" or "exploratory" research? It is, of > course, > > different to some debatable extent. Regardless, I think Paul's comments > shed > > light on the reality that there is a large gray area between the extremes > of > > purely observational studies and purely hypothesis driven studies (which > his > > 2005 paper apparently documents). Given this, I find the explicit or > > underlying claims of superiority made by proponents of hypothesis driven > > research to ring false (despite some of the strong benefits of hypothesis > > testing that Paul and others have made clear). I find such claims ironic > > since the result of many observational or exploratory studies is, gasp, a > > hypothesis. > > > > Finally, regardless of the language we use to reference hypotheses in our > > introductions, I ask: Is it always beneficial to cloak studies that are > > somewhat exploratory behind a veil of singlular hypothesis testing? Or > > might we also sometimes gain and share insights by making the process of > > data exploration and hypothesis testing/modification more apparent in our > > manuscripts? > > > > To be clear, my comments are more in response to a general > > narrow-mindedness that I've observed among some natural scientists, not > to > > any particular post or 'poster' in this recent thread (i.e. I found > Paul's > > post insightful and not especially narrow-minded). > > > > Kevin Mueller > > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Paul Grogan wrote: > > > > "Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up > > stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and > > evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript > > reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as > > originally > > thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis > > statement should be made so that the final research output – the > > peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as > accurate > > and accessible to others as possible. As a result, I usually finish my > > manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the > > following hypotheses....” (rather than “We tested the following > > hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the part > of > > the author)." >
