-----Original Message-----
From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of
Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:28 AM
To: r-devel at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] default for 'signif.stars'
The addition of significant stars was, in my opinion, one of the worst
defaults ever added to R.?? I would be delighted to see it removed, or
at least change the default.? It is one of the few overrides that I
have argued to add to our site- wide defaults file.
My bias comes from 30+ years in a medical statistics career where
fighting the disease of "dichotomania" has been an eternal struggle.?
Continuous covariates are split in two, nuanced risk scores are
thresholded, decisions become yes/no, ....??? Adding stars to output
is, to me, simply a gateway drug to this pernicous addiction.?? We shouldn't encourage it.
Wrt Abe's rant about the Nature article:? I've read the article and
found it to be well reasoned, and I can't say the same about the rant.??
The issue in biomedical science is that the p-value has fallen victim to Goodhart's law:
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."?
The article argues, and I would agree, that the .05 yes/no decision
rule is currently doing more harm than good in biomedical research.??
What to do instead of this is a tough question, but it is fairly clear
that the current plan isn't working.?? I have seen many cases of two
papers which both found a risk increase of 1.9 for something where one
paper claimed "smoking gun" and the other "completely exonerated".??
Do YOU want to take a drug with 2x risk and a p= 0.2 'proof' that it
is okay??? Of course, if there is too much to do and too little time,
people will find a way to create a shortcut yes/no rule no matter what
we preach.?? (We statisticians will do it
too.)
Terry T.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]