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.

qsz comments on I love zebras - Less Wrong Discussion

8 [deleted] 05 February 2014 05:47PM

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

Comments (25)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 06 February 2014 11:42:52AM 2 points [-]

How about the classic example of testing whether a coin is biased? This seems to use "virtual sample" as described in the original post to reflect the hypothesised state of affairs in which the coin is fair: P(heads) = P(tails) = 0.5. This can be simulated without a coin (whatever number of samples one wishes) then compared against observed counts of heads vs tails of the coin in question.

The same applies for any other situation where there is a theoretically derived prediction about probabilities to be tested (for example, "is my multiple choice exam so hard that students are not performing above chance?" If there are four choices we can test against a hypothetical P=.25).

Comment author: Creutzer 06 February 2014 11:48:40AM *  1 point [-]

But there you have a probabilistically formulated null hypothesis (coin is fair, students perform at chance level). In the equids example, the null hypothesis is that the probability of sampling a zebra is 0, which is disproven by simply pointing out that you, in fact, sampled some zebras. It makes no sense to calculate a p-value.

I have no idea what Fisher's test is supposed to do here. Show a correlation between the property of being a zebra and the property of being in the real, as opposed to the imaginary, sample? ... That's meaningless.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 February 2014 12:04:39PM 1 point [-]

Agreed! Perhaps Fisher's test was used because it can deal with small expected values in cells of contingency tables (where chi-square is flawed) but "small" must still > 0.

Comment author: Creutzer 06 February 2014 08:19:40PM *  2 points [-]

Which just made me think that it would have been hilarious if Dr. Yagami had realised this and continued by saying that because of it, and in order to make the statistical test applicable, he is going to add an amount of random noise.