= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Too good to be true - 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 (119)
That part was just him noticing his confusion. The only way to figure out what the real confidence levels were would be to try and find the studies, which is exactly what he did.
I read his post twice and I still don't see him having figured out the real confidence levels or claiming to have.
edit: besides, Phil's own claims don't even meet the 95% confidence, and god only knows out of how big of a pool he fished this bias example from, and how many instances of 'a few studies find a link but most don't' he ignored until he came up with this.