Is NHST logically flawed? Commentary on: “NHST is still logically flawed”

Bickel, D. R., & Patriota, A. G. (2018). Self-consistent confidence sets and tests of composite hypotheses applicable to restricted parameters, Bernoulli. http://www.bernoulli-society.org/index.php/publications/bernoulli-journal/bernoulli-journal-papers. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. PNAS, 114(14), 3714–3719. Fisher, R. A. (1959). Statistical methods and scientific inference (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716. Patriota, A. G. (2013). A classical measure of evidence for general null hypotheses. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 233, 74–88. Schervish, M. J. (1996). \(P\) values: What they are and what they are not. The American Statistician, 50, 203–206. Schneider, J. W. (2015). Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations. Scientometrics, 102, 411–432. Schneider, J. W. (2018). NHST is still logically flawed. Scientometrics, 115, 627–635. Wu, J. (2018). Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations”. Scientometrics, 115, 621–625.