Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid
15-16 December 2011
Scientists spend a lot of time testing a hypothesis, and classifying experimental results as (in)significant evidence. But even after a century of hot debate, there is no consensus on what this concept of significance implies, how the results of hypothesis tests should be interpreted, and which practical pitfalls have to be avoided. Take the fierce criticisms of significance testing in economics, take the endless debate about statistical reform in psychology, take the foundational disagreement between frequentists and Bayesians about what constitutes statistical evidence. Our workshop brings together the perspectives of philosophers and methodologists, statisticians and practitioners. Contributions on all aspects of hypothesis testing that relate to the use and interpretation of those tests, and their role for scientific inference, are welcome. The workshop will be focused on debate, with a discussant for each paper, no parallel sessions and active engagement between the participants. We invite submissions of extended abstracts (up to 1000 words) by 31 August 2011. Decisions will be made by 15 September 2011.
Keynote Speakers
Jose Bernardo, Universitat de València
Kevin Hoover, Duke University
Organizers
Jan Sprenger, Tilburg
David Teira, UNED
Program Committee
Max Albert, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen
Miguel Ángel Gómez Villegas, Universidad Complutense Madrid
Stephan Hartmann, Tilburg University
Julian Reiss, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Andrés Rivadulla, Universidad Complutense Madrid
Aris Spanos, Virginia Tech
Katie Steele, London School of Economics
Jesús Zamora Bonilla, UNED Madrid
Submission Link
Timetable
31 August 2011: Deadline for submission extended abstracts (<=1000 words)
15 September 2011: Notification of Acceptance
15 November 2011: Registration deadline
15-16 December 2011: Workshop
