🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <57241@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> 
> As for statistical significance, neither I nor anyone else has been able
> to come up with any good reason to use it; it is a leftover from the time
> when it was misinterpreted.  
> 

I agree whole-heartedly.  The real problem is that many people have come up
with good *ways* to *mis*use it, from requiring statistical significance as a
prerequisite for publication to concentrating on statistical significance while
ignoring practical significance.  I see no quick way out of these traps,
although things seem to be improving ever so slightly over the long haul.  (Like
the hour hand on the clock, you don't see it move, but it moves.)