2 ms·
What you're describing is an epiphenomenon, and increasing the sample size won't fix this. In fact, increasing the sample-size (i.e. over-powering a study) inc
by omginternets 11y ago
What you're describing is an epiphenomenon, and increasing the sample size won't fix this. In fact, increasing the sample-size (i.e. over-powering a study) increases the propensity for spurious correlation.
This may well be an epiphenomenon, but that's why reproductibility (not statistical significance) is the gold-standard of science.
- tomp 11y ago> In fact, increasing the sample-size (i.e. over-powering a study) increases the propensity for spurious correlation. Huh? If there aren't just 2 kinds of brain, but instead 30 different kinds, then a study with 300 brains is much more likely to catch all 30 kinds of brains than a study with just 50 brains.
- omginternets 11y agoSo you're worried about a representative sample? This is -- again -- only indirectly related to sample size. If the sample was randomly selected and the statistical power is great enough, then any correlation it's missing is marginal; this is a feature, not a bug! You're not entirely wrong insofar as brain-imagery studies rarely conduct random samples, but increasing your sample size won't fix that.