= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
EHeller comments on Don't You Care If It Works? - Part 1 - 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 (58)
It doesn't the frequentist is already measuring with the sample distribution. That is how frequentism works.
I mean it's not "wrong" but if you care about false positive rates and there is a method had has a 5% false positive rate, wouldn't you want to use that instead?
If for some reason low false positive rates were important, sure. If it's important enough to give up consistency.