3 ms·
Before your comment, I edited it to be much more civil and less presumptuous, my original phrasing had included "3.8 sigma is fuck-all", I was briefer, more res
by logicallee 11y ago
Before your comment, I edited it to be much more civil and less presumptuous, my original phrasing had included "3.8 sigma is fuck-all", I was briefer, more resolute, and had just included my first link. (You can see evidence of my original phrasing if you remove the hedging I added.)
But the downvotes meant I'm probably wrong - rather than delete I edited it to be much nicer so I could find out why I'm wrong.
- scott_s 11y agoPerhaps the downvotes are coming because their arguments do not rely just on the improbability of that outcome.
- daveguy 11y agoUpvoted for tempering the aggression and because I agree with you. As far as I can tell your interpretations of the statistics are correct. I don't see how an argument can include information stronger than the statistics of indirect detection of the object (without direct detection).