= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Confidence levels inside and outside an argument - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (174)
This raises the question: Should scientific journals adjust the p-value that they require from an experiment, to be no larger than the probability (found empirically) that a peer-reviewed article contains a factual, logical, methodological, experimental, or typographical error?
The meta-science part would change with time, e.g. how many people read the article and found no mistakes. Doesn't seem to mix well with a fixed result.
Maybe some separate, online thing that just reported on the probability of claims could handle the meta-science.