This is a guest post by Greg Crowther, of Everett Community College, in Everett, Washington, and it’s the latest installment in my “How I learned to write” series. Image: Greg performing “Have Yourself a Healthy Little Kidney” for the University of Washington Division of Nephrology (2017).
Take it away, Greg:
As a reader of this blog, I’ve enjoyed its guest posts on the development of scientific writing skills (entry 1, entry 2, entry 3). I’d now like to add my own perspective, but with a twist. The writing I most enjoy doing is musical in nature — so, at the risk of seeming completely self-absorbed, I’m going to sketch out my development as a science songwriter, using seasonally appropriate examples.*
Act 1: Student, aiming for humor (1987-2002) Continue reading
Image: William Caxton showing his printing press to King Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth (public domain)
It’s a phrase that gets no respect: “nearly significant”. Horrified tweets, tittering, and all the rest – a remarkably large number of people are convinced that when someone finds P = 0.06 and utters the phrase “nearly significant”, it betrays that person’s complete lack of statistical knowledge. Or maybe of ethics. It’s not true, of course. It’s a perfectly reasonable philosophy to interpret P-values as continuous metrics of evidence* rather than as lines in the sand that are either crossed or not. But today I’m not concerned with the philosophical justification for the two interpretations of P values – if you want more about that, there’s my older post, or for a broader and much more authoritative treatment, there’s Deborah Mayo’s recent book (well worth reading for this and other reasons). Instead, I’m going to offer a non-philosophical explanation for how we came to think “nearly significant” is wrongheaded. I’m going to suggest that it has a lot to do with our continued reliance on a piece of 15th-century technology: the printing press. Continue reading