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.

satt 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (189)
Tags: error statistics medicine

Comments (189)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: satt 08 April 2013 11:43:33PM 2 points [-]

As a general comment, this is why Bayesian statistics is much more amenable to knowledge-generation than frequentist statistics. The statement "the hyperactivity increase in the experimental group was 0.36+/-2.00, and that range solidly includes 0" (with the variance of that estimate pulled out of thin air) is much more meaningful than "we can't be sure it's not zero."

I agree with the second sentence, and the first might be true, but the second isn't evidence for the first; interval estimation vs. hypothesis testing is an independent issue to Bayesianism vs. frequentism. There are Bayesian hypothesis tests and frequentist interval estimates.

Comment author: Vaniver 09 April 2013 03:20:06AM 2 points [-]

Agreed that both have those tools, and rereading my comment I think "approach" may have been a more precise word than "statistics." If you think in terms of "my results are certain, reality is uncertain" then the first tool you reach for is "let's make an interval estimate / put a distribution on reality," whereas if you think in terms of "reality is certain, my results are uncertain" then the first tool you reach for is hypothesis testing. Such defaults have very important effects on what actually gets used in studies.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit