Resnick in What a nerdy debate about p-values shows about science and how to fix it (Links to an external site.) (2017) discusses some of the problems in research that revolve around the 0.05 upper bound for statistically significant p-values. Please read through the article, and then decide for yourself: Do you think 0.05 is too high a threshold and should be lowered? If so, what threshold would you propose? If you think it should remain at 0.05, why?
In your response you may also want (but are not required) to address the following:
What effect would universally lowering the p-value have on the frequency of Type I and Type II errors?
Do you think the threshold for statistical significance should vary by scientific discipline?
Do the points made in the article make you think differently about the results you might see in the scientific literature?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|