Return to Answer

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is a feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing where there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. But $p$ as evidence against the Null is Fisherian. Hence he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cosma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests of a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x) > t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if it is sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t(s)$ such that $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=\alpha$.

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal. Of course, for different data sets or hypotheses this is no longer valid.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is a feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing where there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. But $p$ as evidence against the Null is Fisherian. Hence he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cosma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests of a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x) > t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if it is sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t(s)$ such that $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=\alpha$.

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is a feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing as there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. Here he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cosma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests of a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x)>t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if it is sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t$ and $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=constant.$

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is a feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing where there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. But $p$ as evidence against the Null is Fisherian. Hence he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cosma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests of a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x) > t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if it is sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t(s)$ such that $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=\alpha$.

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing as there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. Here he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cozma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests off a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x)>t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if its sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t$ and $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=constant.$

My personal appraisal of his arguments:

1. Here he talks about using $p$ as evidence for the Null, whereas his thesis is that $p$ can't be used as evidence against the Null. So, I think this argument is largely irrelevant.
2. I think this is a misunderstanding. Fisherian $p$ testing follows strongly in the idea of Popper's Critical Rationalism that states you cannot support a theory but only criticize it. So in that sense there only is a single hypothesis (the Null) and you simply check if your data are in accordance with it.
3. I disagree here. It depends on the test statistic but $p$ is usually a transformation of an effect size that speaks against the Null. So the higher the effect, the lower the p value---all other things equal.
4. I am not sure I completely understand this statement, but from what I can gather this is less a problem of $p$ as of people using it wrongly. $p$ was intended to have the long-run frequency interpretation and that is a feature not a bug. But you can't blame $p$ for people taking a single $p$ value as proof for their hypothesis or people publishing only $p<.05$.

His suggestion of using the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidence is in my opinion a good one (but here the idea of a Bayes factor is more general), but in the context in which he brings it is a bit peculiar: First he leaves the grounds of Fisherian testing as there is no alternative hypothesis to calculate the likelihood ratio from. Here he confounds Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Second, most test statistics that we use are (functions of) the likelihood ratio and in that case $p$ is a transformation of the likelihood ratio. As Cosma Shalizi puts it:

among all tests of a given size $s$ , the one with the smallest miss probability, or highest power, has the form "say 'signal' if $q(x)/p(x)>t(s)$, otherwise say 'noise'," and that the threshold $t$ varies inversely with $s$. The quantity $q(x)/p(x)$ is the likelihood ratio; the Neyman-Pearson lemma says that to maximize power, we should say "signal" if it is sufficiently more likely than noise.

Here $q(x)$ is the density under state "signal" and $p(x)$ the density under state "noise". The measure for "sufficiently likely" would here be $P(q(X)/p(x) > t_{obs} \mid H_0)$ which is $p$. Note that in correct Neyman-Pearson testing $t_{obs}$ is substituted by a fixed $t$ and $P(q(X)/p(x) > t(s) \mid H_0)=constant.$