{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02165196471531676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.971291866028708, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Statistical Significance Tests

presents excellent cautionary remarks concerning the use of such tests, and the author urges that they be given less emphasis. I agree wholeheartedly with Cowger's recommendations. However, I am greatly concerned that his cautions might be taken out of context by those who are ideologically opposed to scientific formalisms or by those who fail to understand Cowger's arguments within the context in which they are presented. In order to perhaps temper any proclivity to misuse Cowger's splendid work, I would like to point out that he called attention to a technical error I made in a publication of some years ago. The importance of this arises from the fact that Cowger's justified criticism of my work is an excellent example of the self-corrective nature of public scientific efforts. It is important to note that Cowger does not argue that we dispose of hypothesis testing altogether. He strongly suggests, however, that such tests be understood and used properly. Those who read, study, and understand Cowger's article will be less likely to make such mistakes in the future. Moreover, Cowger's own scientific efforts, if heeded, will promote the self-corrective nature of scientific work in our profession.