“This behavior strikes us as ideal”: assessment and anticipations of Huisman (2022)
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 02-2024 |
| Journal | Psychonomic Bulletin and Review |
| Volume | Issue number | 31 | 1 |
| Pages (from-to) | 242-248 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
Huisman (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–10. 2022) argued that a valid measure of evidence should indicate more support in favor of a true alternative hypothesis when sample size is large than when it is small. Bayes factors may violate this pattern and hence Huisman concluded that Bayes factors are invalid as a measure of evidence. In this brief comment we call attention to the following: (1) Huisman’s purported anomaly is in fact dictated by probability theory; (2) Huisman’s anomaly has been discussed and explained in the statistical literature since 1939; the anomaly was also highlighted in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review article by Rouder et al. (2009), who interpreted the anomaly as “ideal”: an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of Huisman. We conclude that when intuition clashes with probability theory, chances are that it is intuition that needs schooling. |
| Document type | Article |
| Note | With reference to: L. Huisman (2023) Are P-values and Bayes factors valid measures of evidential strength? In: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 30, pp. 932–941. |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x |
| Other links | https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85166980007 |
| Downloads |
s13423-023-02299-x
(Final published version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |
