The Controversy about Hypothesis Testing
15-16 December 2011
Scientists spend a lot of time testing hypotheses, and classifying experimental results as (in)significant evidence. But even after a century of hot debate, there is no consensus on what this concept of significance implies, how the results of hypothesis tests should be interpreted, and which practical pitfalls have to be avoided. Take the fierce criticisms of significance testing in economics, take the endless debate about statistical reform in psychology, take the foundational disagreement between frequentists and Bayesians about what constitutes statistical evidence. Our workshop brings together the perspectives of philosophers and methodologists, statisticians and practitioners. We invite contributions on all aspects of hypothesis testing that relate to the use and interpretation of those tests, and their role for scientific inference.