I commented "it would seem that researchers are bad statisticians. In that case it is likely they will misuse any method."
Seemingly angered, you questioned my comment, as follows:"To be serious, why would you reach for this over-generalization?"
I replied(2 comments above) and you shot back "In short, f-off and have a nice day. "
Such a statement is usually an admission you have lost the plot but I will more charitably assume you have failed to understand my reply. So let me spell it out for you in a nice simple way.1) researchers make statistical mistakes
:"These mistakes include accepting the null hypothesis when it fails to be rejected, automatically interpreting rejected null hypotheses as theoretically meaningful, and failing to consider the likelihood of Type II errors "2) these mistakes are common
:"it leads to common inferential mistakes "
(1) + (2) = many researchers are bad statisticians3) researchers seem not to learn
:"Although these mistakes have been discussed repeatedly for decades, there is no evidence that the academic discussion has had an impact"
(3) = it is a fair inference that if they make statistical mistakes and fail to learn(for decades) they are likely to misuse other procedures. A related paper, which I quote, below, shows this did indeed happen.
You might not agree with this inference so let me quote what the second paper said:"However, compliance was superficial: Very few authors referred to CIs when discussing results. The results of our survey support what other research has indicated: Editorial policy alone is not a sufficient mechanism for statistical reform. Achieving substantial, desirable change will require further guidance regarding use and interpretation of CIs and appropriate effect size measures. Necessary steps will include studying researchers' understanding of CIs, improving education, and developing empirically justified recommendations for improved statistical practice."
So in reply to your question, "why would you reach for this over-generalization?"
, the answer is that this is derived from conclusions by the authors of the two papers cited.
I will readily concede the paper says 'common inferential mistakes'
, which means not each and every researcher, but enough to make it 'common'
. The second paper said compliance was 'superficial'
and 'very few'
I think I have made my case.
Now you might not agree with the conclusion and in that case your beef is with the authors of the papers. In which case you will actually have to phrase a substantive reply.