= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mwengler 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)
Is there any reason at all to think that these medical studies didn't use 95%? The universal confidence level, used pretty much everywhere in medicine and psychology except in rare subfields like genomics, so universal that authors of papers typically don't even bother to specify or justify the confidence level?
Suppose there were 60 studies that showed no correlation between autism and vaccines at a 99% confidence level. THen it would not be particularly surprising that there were indeed 60 studies with that result.
Would you expect the authors to point out that their result was actually 99% confident even though the usual standard, which they were not explicitly claiming anyway, was 95%?