The significant difference paradigm promotes bad science

The present paper addresses questions raised by Ball and Sawyer (2013--this issue) on Hubbard and Lindsay´s (this issue) article. In particular, it responds explicitly to their concerns about the possible drawbacks of using overlapping confidence intervals as a measure of significant sameness, and whether or not a “straw man” argument is being offered. Importantly, this article elaborates on other critical elements of the significant sameness paradigm, including the notion of predictive precision, and the fact that this paradigm accurately describes how real science progresses.