Cargando…

Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy

Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colombo, Matteo, Duev, Georgi, Nuijten, Michèle B., Sprenger, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29649220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194360
_version_ 1783313879701389312
author Colombo, Matteo
Duev, Georgi
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Sprenger, Jan
author_facet Colombo, Matteo
Duev, Georgi
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Sprenger, Jan
author_sort Colombo, Matteo
collection PubMed
description Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on one aspect of this question, namely the rate of inconsistencies in statistical reporting. Previous research has examined the extent to which published articles in psychology and other behavioral sciences present statistical inconsistencies in reporting the results of NHST. In this study, we used the R package statcheck to detect statistical inconsistencies in x-phi, and compared rates of inconsistencies in psychology and philosophy. We found that rates of inconsistencies in x-phi are lower than in the psychological and behavioral sciences. From the point of view of statistical reporting consistency, x-phi seems to do no worse, and perhaps even better, than psychological science.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5896892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58968922018-05-04 Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy Colombo, Matteo Duev, Georgi Nuijten, Michèle B. Sprenger, Jan PLoS One Research Article Experimental philosophy (x-phi) is a young field of research in the intersection of philosophy and psychology. It aims to make progress on philosophical questions by using experimental methods traditionally associated with the psychological and behavioral sciences, such as null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Motivated by recent discussions about a methodological crisis in the behavioral sciences, questions have been raised about the methodological standards of x-phi. Here, we focus on one aspect of this question, namely the rate of inconsistencies in statistical reporting. Previous research has examined the extent to which published articles in psychology and other behavioral sciences present statistical inconsistencies in reporting the results of NHST. In this study, we used the R package statcheck to detect statistical inconsistencies in x-phi, and compared rates of inconsistencies in psychology and philosophy. We found that rates of inconsistencies in x-phi are lower than in the psychological and behavioral sciences. From the point of view of statistical reporting consistency, x-phi seems to do no worse, and perhaps even better, than psychological science. Public Library of Science 2018-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5896892/ /pubmed/29649220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194360 Text en © 2018 Colombo et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Colombo, Matteo
Duev, Georgi
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Sprenger, Jan
Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title_full Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title_fullStr Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title_full_unstemmed Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title_short Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
title_sort statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29649220
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194360
work_keys_str_mv AT colombomatteo statisticalreportinginconsistenciesinexperimentalphilosophy
AT duevgeorgi statisticalreportinginconsistenciesinexperimentalphilosophy
AT nuijtenmicheleb statisticalreportinginconsistenciesinexperimentalphilosophy
AT sprengerjan statisticalreportinginconsistenciesinexperimentalphilosophy