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 20 September 2011. Decisions will be made by 30 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
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=test2011

Timetable
20 September 2011: Deadline for submission extended abstracts (<=1000 words) 
30 September 2011: Notification of Acceptance
15 November 2011: Registration deadline
15-16 December 2011: Workshop