On the Correct Use of Statistical Tests: Reply to "Lies, damned lies and statistics (in Geology)"

TL;DR

This paper defends the proper use of statistical tests in geology, clarifying misconceptions and emphasizing their informativeness, while critiquing Vermeesch's claims about statistical and geological significance.

Contribution

It provides a detailed critique of Vermeesch's assertions, clarifies common misunderstandings about statistical significance, and serves as an educational resource on statistical principles in geology.

Findings

Statistical tests are always informative when correctly applied.

Misinterpretations of statistical significance can lead to misconceptions.

The paper clarifies the distinction between statistical and geological significance.

Abstract

In a Forum published in EOS Transactions AGU (2009) entitled "Lies, damned lies and statistics (in Geology)", Vermeesch (2009) claims that "statistical significant is not the same as geological significant", in other words, statistical tests may be misleading. In complete contradiction, we affirm that statistical tests are always informative. We detail the several mistakes of Vermeesch in his initial paper and in his comments to our reply. The present text is developed in the hope that it can serve as an illuminating pedagogical exercise for students and lecturers to learn more about the subtleties, richness and power of the science of statistics.