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.

PhilGoetz 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 April 2013 03:45:31PM *  1 point [-]

The fact that the authors ignored potential heterogeneity in responses IS a problem for their analysis, but their result is still evidence against heterogeneous responses.

Why do you say that? Did you look at the data?

They found F values of 0.77, 2.161, and 1.103. That means they found different behavior in the two groups. But those F-values were lower than the thresholds they had computed assuming homogeneity. They therefore said "We have rejected the hypothesis", and claimed that the evidence, which interpreted in a Bayesian framework might support that hypothesis, refuted it.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 07 April 2013 07:30:22PM 2 points [-]

I didn't look at the data. I was commenting on your assessment of what they did, which showed that you didn't know how the F test works. Your post made it seem as if all they did was run an F test that compared the average response of the control and treatment groups and found no difference.