Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The choice of significance threshold (e.g., p<0.05 vs p<0... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Ethical judgments and contextual values necessarily enter the scientist's core activity of accepting and rejecting hypotheses, refuting the Value-Neutrality Thesis (VNT).

    The choice of significance threshold (e.g., p<0.05 vs p<0.01) is not determined by data alone but by judgments about which error type causes more harm.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Different domains face asymmetric costs: approving harmful drugs causes deaths; rejecting beneficial ones delays treatment. These aren't mathematically equivalent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Statistical thresholds are policy choices, not pure data facts. Policy choices legitimately depend on values about acceptable risk, which vary by context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pretending thresholds are 'objective' hides value judgments rather than eliminating them, obscuring accountability for consequential decisions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Type I and Type II errors are mathematically coupled through power and sample size. Choosing thresholds based on consequences requires empirical knowledge of actual harm magnitudes, not just intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If threshold selection depends entirely on subjective judgments of harm, this enables post-hoc rationalization of predetermined conclusions rather than principled decision-making.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Standardized thresholds (p<0.05) enable comparison across studies and guard against cherry-picking thresholds. Contextual variation undermines reproducibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedBioethics1 linked

    Related

    Different domains face asymmetric costs: approving harmful drugs causes deaths; ...Ethical judgments and contextual values necessarily enter the scientist's core a...If threshold selection depends entirely on subjective judgments of harm, this en...Pretending thresholds are 'objective' hides value judgments rather than eliminat...
    +3 moreShow less
    Standardized thresholds (p<0.05) enable comparison across studies and guard agai...Statistical thresholds are policy choices, not pure data facts. Policy choices l...Type I and Type II errors are mathematically coupled through power and sample si...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit