IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v180y2017i4p948-965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust in numbers

Author

Listed:
  • David Spiegelhalter

Abstract

Those who value quantitative and scientific evidence are faced with claims both of a reproducibility crisis in scientific publication and of a post‐truth society abounding in fake news and alternative facts. Both issues are of vital importance to statisticians, and both are deeply concerned with trust in expertise. By considering the ‘pipelines’ through which scientific and political evidence is propagated, I consider possible ways of improving both the trustworthiness of the statistical evidence being communicated, and the ability of audiences to assess the quality and reliability of what they are being told.

Suggested Citation

  • David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:180:y:2017:i:4:p:948-965
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    3. Laura Spinney, 2017. "How Facebook, fake news and friends are warping your memory," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7644), pages 168-170, March.
    4. Gelman, Andrew & Stern, Hal, 2006. "The Difference Between," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 60, pages 328-331, November.
    5. Anita Makri, 2017. "Give the public the tools to trust scientists," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7637), pages 261-261, January.
    6. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, 2016. "The ASA's Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 129-133, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brewer, Mike & Crossley, Thomas F. & Zilio, Federico, 2019. "What Do We Really Know about the Employment Effects of the UK's National Minimum Wage?," IZA Discussion Papers 12369, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Sylvia Richardson, 2022. "Statistics in times of increasing uncertainty," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(4), pages 1471-1496, October.
    3. David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    2. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    3. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    4. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    5. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    6. Michaelides, Michael, 2021. "Large sample size bias in empirical finance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," Working Papers halshs-01651070, HAL.
    9. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    10. Robert Rieg, 2018. "Tasks, interaction and role perception of management accountants: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 183-220, August.
    11. Anderson, Brian S. & Wennberg, Karl & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2019. "Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    12. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2018. "A history of statistical methods in experimental economics," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1455-1492, November.
    13. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    14. Herman Carstens & Xiaohua Xia & Sarma Yadavalli, 2018. "Bayesian Energy Measurement and Verification Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2019. "Lag length selection and p-hacking in Granger causality testing: prevalence and performance of meta-regression models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 797-830, March.
    16. Rigdon, Edward E., 2016. "Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 598-605.
    17. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    18. Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Page, Lionel & Dulleck, Uwe, 2015. "Promoting pro-social behavior with public statements of good intent," MPRA Paper 80072, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 May 2017.
    19. David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2013. "Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases," CSI Working Papers Series 031, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.
    20. Ádám Kun, 2018. "Publish and Who Should Perish: You or Science?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:180:y:2017:i:4:p:948-965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.