= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kawoomba 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)
Unfortunately, there's an error in your logic: You call that type of medical journal article error "universal", i.e. applicable in all cases. Clearly a universal quantifier if I ever saw one.
That means that for all medical journal articles, it is true that they contain that error.
However, there exists a medical journal article that does not contain that error.
Hence the medical journal error is not universal, in contradiction to the title.
First logical error ... and we're not even out of the title? Oh dear.
Perhaps a clearer title would have been 'A Universal Quantifier Medical Journal Article Error'. Bit of a noun pile, but the subject of the post is an alleged unjustified use of a universal quantifier in a certain article's conclusion.
By the way, I think PhilGoetz is 100% correct on this point - i.e., upon failure to prove a hypothesis using standard frequentist techniques, it is not appropriate to claim a result.