Sohn (1998) presents a good argument that neither statistical significance nor effect size is indicative of the replicability of research results. His objection to the Bayesian argument is also succinct. However, his solution of the `replicability belief' issue is problematic, and his verdict that significance tests have no role to play in empirical research is debatable. The strengths and weaknesses of Sohn's argument may be seen by explicating some of his assertions.
Boring, E.G. (1954). The nature and history of experimental control. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 573-589.
2.
Boring, E.G. (1969). Perspective: Artifact and control. In R. Rosenthal & R. L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 1-11). New York: Academic Press.
3.
Chow, S.L. (1989). Significance tests and deduction: Reply to Folger (1989). Psychological Bulletin, 106, 161-165.
4.
Chow, S.L. (1991). Rigor and logic: A response to comments on `Conceptual Rigor'. Theory & Psychology, 1, 389-400.
Mayo, D.G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century.
11.
Sohn, D. (1998). Statistical significance and replicability: Why the former does not presage the latter. Theory & Psychology, 8, 291-311.
12.
Steering Committee of the Physicians' Health Study Research Group (1988). Preliminary report: Findings of the aspirin component of the ongoing physicians' health study. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 262-264.
