pull down to refresh

I completely agree. I don't think it's necessary to confine yourself to the prespecification, but I think it's good to have it and to report what is found when doing it.
Since nothing ever goes according to plan, though, I'm fine with exploring other possibilities from there.
In one sense, you could just raise the standards for statistical significance to account for how many specifications you explored. The problem is looking at 100 things and then reporting as though the 5% significance on the coefficients from one specification is very meaningful.
Agree that preregistered studies would go a long way
We're far from getting anything close to nuance though given how lacking statistical education is. I literally had a biology phd teach my kid that a p-value of 0.05 or below means that X causes Y 🤦🏻‍♂️
reply
41 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fabs 3 May
Damn you two seem highly educated.
reply
I can read between the lines
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 3 May
:) I'd like to submit a request to join.
reply
It's truly amazing how poorly most empirical disciplines understand empirical science.
reply
This is one area that I found the natural sciences surprisingly lacking in. I'm really glad for my econometrics education in that regard
reply
We have the most endogeneity issues to worry about, so we think about this stuff the most.
reply