Abstract
The present paper addresses questions raised by Ball and Sawyer (2013--this issue) on Hubbard and Lindsay´s (this issue) article. In particular, it responds explicitly to their concerns about the possible drawbacks of using overlapping confidence intervals as a measure of significant sameness, and whether or not a “straw man” argument is being offered. Importantly, this article elaborates on other critical elements of the significant sameness paradigm, including the notion of predictive precision, and the fact that this paradigm accurately describes how real science progresses.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
