Last week we introduced p-values as a way to set a predetermined cutoff when testing if something seems unusual enough to reject our null hypothesis – that they are the same. But today we’re going to discuss some problems with the logic of p-values, how they are commonly misinterpreted, how p-values don’t give us exactly what we want to know, and how that cutoff is arbitrary – and arguably not stringent enough in some scenarios.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark Brouwer, Erika & Alexa Saur Glenn Elliott, Justin Zingsheim, Jessica Wode, Eric Prestemon, Kathrin Benoit, Tom Trval, Nathan Taylor, Divonne Holmes à Court, Brian Thomas Gossett, Khaled El Shalakany, Indika Siriwardena, SR Foxley, Sam Ferguson, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Caleb Weeks, Tim Curwick, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, Ruth Perez, Malcolm Callis, Ken Penttinen, Advait Shinde, William McGraw, Andrei Krishkevich, Rachel Bright, Mayumi Maeda, Kathy & Tim Philip, Jirat, Eric Kitchen, Ian Dundore, Chris Peters
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse