= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The Universal Medical Journal Article Error - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (189)
disagree because not correct.
Phil's logical interpretation procedure would call shenanigans whether or not the statistical reasoning was correct.
The whole point of statistics is that it can tell us things logic cannot. If there is an important point to be made here, it needs to be made with a statistical analysis, not a logical one.
Logical analysis is a limiting case of statistical analysis, thus problems with logical reasoning have corresponding problems with statistical reasoning. I agree that Phil should have spelled out this distinction explicitly.
Their statistical analysis was correct, modulo their assumptions. They made their logical error in how they interpreted its conclusion.
People. Explain your downvotes of this comment. Do you think their statistical analysis was incorrect? Do you think they made no logical error?