Fascinating, interesting, and useful discussion above a paramount topic in the science,till now erroneously, and dogmatically accepted as true, enlightening a fundamental aspect. Regarding the Medicine field, I must emphasise what accounts for the reason "significant" is very often "no-significant", e.g., if it laks a complete illustrtaion of alla data concerning the research. For instance, in assessing the role plaied by coffee in preventing pancreas cancer, Authors have firsty to state that all individuals, ensolled in the study, are positive for Oncological Terrain-Dependent, Inherited Real Risk of pancreas cancer! On the contrary, a research could conclude that tobacco smoking can prevent lung cancer, if the majority of enrolled individuals are negative for Oncological Terrain-Dependent Inherited Real Risk of lung cancer. From the above original remarks oe understand bettter Andrew Gelman and Hal Stern's statemente "The common error of making comparisons based on statistical significance in a 2006 paper for The American Statistician, titled “The difference between ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ is not itself statistically significant.
posted by Sergio Stagnaro
January 28, 2013 @ 9:41 AM
JSTOR, the online academic archive, contains complete back issues of American Scientist from 1913 (known then as the Sigma Xi Quarterly) through 2005.
The table of contents for each issue is freely available to all users; those with institutional access can read each complete issue.
View the full collection here.
An early peek at each new issue, with descriptions of feature articles, columns, and more. Every other issue contains links to everything in the latest issue's table of contents.
News of book reviews published in
and around the web, as well as other noteworthy happenings in the world of science books.
To sign up for automatic emails of the
American Scientist Update
issues, create an
, then sign up in the
My AmSci area