You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dspeyer comments on The Universal Medical Journal Article Error - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 April 2014 05:57PM

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

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: dspeyer 06 April 2013 05:07:48AM 3 points [-]

If 11 out of 11 children studied have a property (no food coloring hyperactivity response), that's a bit stronger than "there exist 11 children with this property", though perhaps not quite "all children have this property".

Comment author: PhilGoetz 06 April 2013 01:30:59PM *  5 points [-]

That's not how it works. You measure the magnitude of an effect, then do a statistical test of the hypothesis that all of the children have a response, which gives a cutoff that the effect magnitude must reach to accept that hypothesis with 95% confidence. If only 10% of the children have such a response, you won't reach that cutoff. If 10% have a positive response and 10% have a negative response, you will detect nothing, no matter how big your sample is.