dlthomas comments on Announcing the Quantified Health Prize - Less Wrong

50 Post author: Zvi 02 December 2011 06:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (140)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 29 December 2011 11:25:14PM 0 points [-]

The statistical significance of that is .16.

So it doesn't make even the too-weak significance of p=.05.

Comment author: dlthomas 29 December 2011 11:28:35PM 1 point [-]

Right, but I think that that's predominately because the sample size is small. We certainly can't conclude, from this evidence, that it does not affect mortality.

Comment author: Vaniver 30 December 2011 12:04:19AM *  0 points [-]

We certainly can't conclude, from this evidence, that it does not affect mortality.

Right, but that's always the case- you can never accept the null hypothesis.

Comment author: dlthomas 30 December 2011 12:17:05AM 3 points [-]

That it's always the case doesn't mean it's not relevant. The evidence showed us a small effect that may or may not be a real effect. Gwern demanded to know why there was no effect. These are not the same thing.