The ego has landed! The .05 level of statistical significance is soft (fisher) rather than hard (neyman/pearson)

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):207-208 (1998)


Chow pays lip service (but not much more!) to Type I errors and thus opts for a hard (all-or-none) .05 level of significance (Superego of Neyman/Pearson theory; Gigerenzer 1993). Most working scientists disregard Type I errors and thus utilize a soft .05 level (Ego of Fisher; Gigerenzer 1993), which lets them report gradations of significance (e.g., p.

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,660

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

13 (#775,530)

6 months
1 (#388,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts.David Widerker - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
Models and Statistical Inference: The Controversy Between Fisher and Neyman–Pearson.Johannes Lenhard - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):69-91.
Resolving Neyman's Paradox.Max Albert - 2002 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1):69-76.
Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman–Pearson Philosophy of Induction.Deborah G. Mayo & Aris Spanos - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):323-357.
The Logic of Tests of Significance.Stephen Spielman - 1974 - Philosophy of Science 41 (3):211-226.
Of Nulls and Norms.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:280 - 290.
Signifying Nothing: Reply to Hoover and Siegler.Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak - 2008 - Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):39-55.

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations