> I believe it was non-statisticians who wanted easy tests that they could apply without understanding much about statistics, who were to blame in that case.
Yes and no. I think most journal articles feature a copy-and-paste approach to statistics, reusing what other papers do, or worse, tinkering with test functions in excel. Yet, this seems to be ok with statisticians it seems.
From my personal experience applying statistics in the software world (and trying to build alerting models for monitoring applications, etc.) is, that since we have a lot of systems that continuously record date (instead of the way scientific studies usually work, collecting a set of data points, N=x), we get cross-validation of our results, which has drastically made me aware of the pitfalls of frequentist statistics.
Yes and no. I think most journal articles feature a copy-and-paste approach to statistics, reusing what other papers do, or worse, tinkering with test functions in excel. Yet, this seems to be ok with statisticians it seems.
From my personal experience applying statistics in the software world (and trying to build alerting models for monitoring applications, etc.) is, that since we have a lot of systems that continuously record date (instead of the way scientific studies usually work, collecting a set of data points, N=x), we get cross-validation of our results, which has drastically made me aware of the pitfalls of frequentist statistics.