On Significance (1975-1999)

"Overemphasis on tests of significance at the expense especially of interval estimation has long been condemned." (David R Cox, "The role of significance tests", Scandanavian Journal of Statistics 4, 1977) 

"The central point is that statistical significance is quite different from scientific significance and that therefore estimation [...] of the magnitude of effects is in general essential regardless of whether statistically significant departure from the null hypothesis is achieved." (David R Cox, "The role of significance tests", Scandanavian Journal of Statistics 4, 1977) 

"Science usually amounts to a lot more than blind trial and error. Good statistics consists of much more than just significance tests; there are more sophisticated tools available for the analysis of results, such as confidence statements, multiple comparisons, and Bayesian analysis, to drop a few names. However, not all scientists are good statisticians, or want to be, and not all people who are called scientists by the media deserve to be so described." (Robert Hooke, "How to Tell the Liars from the Statisticians", 1983)

"The idea of statistical significance is valuable because it often keeps us from announcing results that later turn out to be nonresults. A significant result tells us that enough cases were observed to provide reasonable assurance of a real effect. It does not necessarily mean, though, that the effect is big enough to be important." (Robert Hooke, "How to Tell the Liars from the Statisticians", 1983)

"It is very bad practice to summarise an important investigation solely by a value of P." (David R Cox, "Statistical significance tests", British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 14, 1982) 

"The criterion for publication should be the achievement of reasonable precision and not whether a significant effect has been found." (David R Cox, "Statistical significance tests", British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 14, 1982) 

"The continued very extensive use of significance tests is alarming." (David R Cox, "Some general aspects of the theory of statistics", International Statistical Review 54, 1986) 

"It has been widely felt, probably for thirty years and more, that significance tests are overemphasized and often misused and that more emphasis should be put on estimation and prediction. While such a shift of emphasis does seem to be occurring, for example in medical statistics, the continued very extensive use of significance tests is on the one hand alarming and on the other evidence that they are aimed, even if imperfectly, at some widely felt need." (David R Cox, "Some general aspects of the theory of statistics", International Statistical Review 54, 1986) 

"A tendency to drastically underestimate the frequency of coincidences is a prime characteristic of innumerates, who generally accord great significance to correspondences of all sorts while attributing too little significance to quite conclusive but less flashy statistical evidence." (John A Paulos, "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", 1988)

"Which I would like to stress are: (1) A significant effect is not necessarily the same thing as an interesting effect. (2) A non-significant effect is not necessarily the same thing as no difference." (Christopher Chatfield, "Problem solving: a statistician’s guide", 1988)

"A little thought reveals a fact widely understood among statisticians: The null hypothesis, taken literally (and that’s the only way you can take it in formal hypothesis testing), is always false in the real world. [...] If it is false, even to a tiny degree, it must be the case that a large enough sample will produce a significant result and lead to its rejection. So if the null hypothesis is always false, what’s the big deal about rejecting it?" (Jacob Cohen,"Things I Have Learned (So Far)", American Psychologist, 1990)

"I do not think that significance testing should be completely abandoned [...] and I don’t expect that it will be. But I urge researchers to provide estimates, with confidence intervals: scientific advance requires parameters with known reliability estimates. Classical confidence intervals are formally equivalent to a significance test, but they convey more information." (Nigel G Yoccoz, "Use, Overuse, and Misuse of Significance Tests in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology", Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America Vol. 72 (2), 1991)

"Rejection of a true null hypothesis at the 0.05 level will occur only one in 20 times. The overwhelming majority of these false rejections will be based on test statistics close to the borderline value. If the null hypothesis is false, the inter-ocular traumatic test ['hit between the eyes'] will often suffice to reject it; calculation will serve only to verify clear intuition." (Ward Edwards et al, "Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research", 1992) 

"Statistical significance testing can involve a tautological logic in which tired researchers, having collected data on hundreds of subjects, then conduct a statistical test to evaluate whether there were a lot of subjects, which the researchers already know, because they collected the data and know they are tired. This tautology has created considerable damage as regards the cumulation of knowledge." (Bruce Thompson, "Two and One-Half Decades of Leadership in Measurement and Evaluation", Journal of Counseling & Development 70 (3), 1992)

"[…] an honest exploratory study should indicate how many comparisons were made […] most experts agree that large numbers of comparisons will produce apparently statistically significant findings that are actually due to chance. The data torturer will act as if every positive result confirmed a major hypothesis. The honest investigator will limit the study to focused questions, all of which make biologic sense. The cautious reader should look at the number of ‘significant’ results in the context of how many comparisons were made." (James L Mills, "Data torturing", New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

"Graphic misrepresentation is a frequent misuse in presentations to the nonprofessional. The granddaddy of all graphical offenses is to omit the zero on the vertical axis. As a consequence, the chart is often interpreted as if its bottom axis were zero, even though it may be far removed. This can lead to attention-getting headlines about 'a soar' or 'a dramatic rise (or fall)'. A modest, and possibly insignificant, change is amplified into a disastrous or inspirational trend." (Herbert F Spirer et al, "Misused Statistics" 2nd Ed, 1998)