The (significant) biological significance of statistical non-significance

Authors

  • Alejandro G. Farji-Brener Laboratorio Ecotono, CRUB, Universidad del Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina

Keywords:

biological and statistical hypotheses, hypothesis testing, non-significant results

Abstract

Rejecting incorrect biological hypotheses as a consequence of statistically non-significant results is commonly undervalued as a step in the growth of our knowledge. Previous arguments against this incorrect belief had been largely based on the negative consequences associated with not publishing papers with statistically non-significant results rather than on the intrinsic epistemological merits to discarding erroneous ideas. In this essay, I will discuss how classical statistical methods and the epistemological approach from which these tools are derived are largely based on the elimination of falsehood rather than on the discovery of truth. The rejection of researches with statistically non-significant results denies the main advantage of classical hypothesis-testing methods. In fact, the rejection of an incorrect biological hypothesis based on high-quality research is one of the most powerful ways to understand nature.

References

ANDERSON, DR; KP BURNHAM & WL THOMPSOM. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J. Wild. Manag. 64:912-923.

BURNHAM, KP & DR ANDERSON. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel inference: A Practical Information-Theoric Approach. Springer-Verlag, N. Y.

BROWN, J. 2001. Ngongas in ecology: on having a worldview. Oikos 94:6-16.

BUNGE, M. 1997. La Ciencia, su método y su filosofía. Segunda edición. Editorial Panamericana. Bogotá, Colombia.

CARVER, RP. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harverd Educational Review 48:378-399.

CSADA, R; P JAMES & R ESPIE. 1996. The “file drawer problem” of non-significant results: does it apply to biological research? Oikos 76:591-593.

EBERHART, LL. 2003. What should we do about hypothesis testing? J. Wild. Manag. 67:241-247.

ELLISON, A. 2004. Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecology Letters 7:509-520.

FARJI-BRENER, AG. 2003. Uso correcto, parcial e incorrecto de los términos “hipótesis” y “predicciones” en ecología. Ecología Austral 13:223-227.

FARJI-BRENER, AG. 2004.¿Son hipótesis las hipótesis estadísticas? Ecología Austral 14:201-203.

GOTELLI, N & A ELLISON. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sinauer Assoc, Inc. Mass, USA.

GRAHAM, M & P DAYTON. 2002. On the evolution of Ecological ideas: paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology 83:1481-1489.

HILBORN, R & M MANGEL. 1997. The Ecological Detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

HULBERT, S. 2004. On misinterpretation of pseudoreplication and related matters: a reply to Oksanen. Oikos 104:591-597.

JOHNSON, D. 1999. The insignificance of statistical significance testing. J. Wildl. Manag. 63:763-772.

JOHNSON, D. 2002. The role of hypothesis testing in willife sciene. J. Wildl. Manag. 66:272-276.

KORICHEVA, J. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102:397-401.

LAKATOS, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press, New York.

LORTIE, J. 1999. Over-interpretation: avoiding the stigma of non-significant results. Oikos 87:183-184.

MAYO, D. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

MCINTOSH, R. 1987. Pluralism in ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol.Sist. 18:321-341.

OKSANEN, L. 2004. The devil lies in details: reply to Stuart Hulbert. Oikos 104:598-605.

PALMER, AR. 1999. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 154:220-233.

POPPER, K. 1959. The logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London.

ROSENTHAL, R. 1979. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86:638-641.

SCHEINER, S & J GUREVITCH. 2001. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Second edition. Oxford University Press, New York.

STEPHENS, PA; SW BUSKIRK; GD HAYWARD & C MARTÍNEZ DEL RÍO. 2005. Information theory and hypothesis testing: a call for pluralism. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:4-12

STOEHR, A. 1999. Are significance thresholds appropriate for the study of animal behavior? Animal Behavior 57:F22-F25.

UNDERWOOD, A. 1997. Experiments in Ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, New York.

WEBER, T. 1999. A plea for diversity of scientific styles in ecology. Oikos 84:526-529.

Downloads

Published

2006-06-01

How to Cite

Farji-Brener, A. G. (2006). The (significant) biological significance of statistical non-significance. Ecología Austral, 16(1), xxx-xxx. Retrieved from https://ojs.ecologiaaustral.com.ar/index.php/Ecologia_Austral/article/view/1454

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 1 (2006)

Section

Forum

License

Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.