Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a scientific study, post hoc analysis (from Latin post hoc, "after this") consists of statistical analyses that were specified after the data were seen. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] They are usually used to uncover specific differences between three or more group means when an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test is significant. [ 3 ]
HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) is an acronym coined by social psychologist Norbert Kerr [1] that refers to the questionable research practice of "presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis".
It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in ...
Rodger's method is a statistical procedure for examining research data post hoc following an 'omnibus' analysis (e.g., after an analysis of variance – anova). The various components of this methodology were fully worked out by R. S. Rodger in the 1960s and 70s, and seven of his articles about it were published in the British Journal of ...
Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning) Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified, also called false dichotomy; Selectively using facts (card stacking)
Post hoc (sometimes written as post-hoc) is a Latin phrase, meaning "after this" or "after the event". Post hoc may refer to: Post hoc analysis or post hoc test, statistical analyses that were not specified before the data were seen; Post hoc theorizing, generating hypotheses based on data already observed
This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation , the errant ...
In statistics, hypotheses suggested by a given dataset, when tested with the same dataset that suggested them, are likely to be accepted even when they are not true.This is because circular reasoning (double dipping) would be involved: something seems true in the limited data set; therefore we hypothesize that it is true in general; therefore we wrongly test it on the same, limited data set ...