= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on The Statistician's Fallacy - 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 (67)
How about "their basic reasoning stands, but they are not being very rigorous with their statistics, so there may be some small errors in p-values and some interpretations".
A bit like if I said "I see a lot of light coming through the window, and it's 4 PM, so it's probably sunny outside", and tried to formalize it statistically. There may be plenty of mistakes in the formalization, but it probably still is sunny.
Doesn't this amount to a rejection of Chris's "Essentially all scientific fields rely heavily on statistics"?
Am I using "rely" differently than everyone else?
How does that differ from my point 2, especially "more robust than they claim"?