4 ms·
Isn't statistics what you resort to when there isn't scope for rigorous thinking?
by applicative 17y ago
Isn't statistics what you resort to when there isn't scope for rigorous thinking?
- marshallp 17y agoNo, statistics requires rigorous thought to be applied properly. That's why it's usually taught in the mathematics department.
- tokenadult 17y agoTeaching a first course in statistics in the mathematics department (rather than in a dedicated department of statistics) may be a mistake. http://statland.org/MAAFIXED.PDF http://statland.org/MAAFIXED.PDF http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hb3k0nz http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hb3k0nz
- roundsquare 17y agoIt can be if its used incorrectly. This is why they said reviewers needed to hold studies to a minimal standard of biological plausibility There's two "good" ways to do this (as far as I can see). 1) Come up with a biologically plausible idea and test it, using statistics to look at results. 2) Find a pattern in the statistics and find a biologically plausible explanation. The biology alone isn't enough, you need to statistics to back up and show actual results. However, using statistics alone and in the way indicated in the article (looking at every test and every subgroup, etc...) is exactly what your saying: avoiding rigorous thinking in favor of getting a result.