5 ms·
> Ideally, Lakens says, the level of statistical significance needed to prove a hypothesis depends on how outlandish the hypothesis is. > Yes, you’d want a ver
by cwyers 9y ago
> Ideally, Lakens says, the level of statistical significance needed to prove a hypothesis depends on how outlandish the hypothesis is.
> Yes, you’d want a very low p-value in a study that claims mental telepathy is possible. But do you need such stringent criteria for a well-worn idea? The high standards could impede young PhDs with low budgets.
Watching someone try to be Bayesian without using Bayesian techniques is painful.
> There are also new, advanced statistical techniques — like Bayesian analysis — that, in some ways, more directly evaluate a study’s outcome.
Almost as painful as watching Bayesian analysis described as "new."
- vinchuco 9y agoNaive question: Is there a good technique for a bot that detects factually wrong statements?
- 09094920394314 9y agoSure, just give me definition of factually wrong and I'build it for you:) Less snarky: not really
- 201709User 9y agoEither general AI or reducing chat into a theorem and then running a prover - but that's for logic not facts. And liberals would have that banned within hours.
- sideshowb 9y agoAhem. Liberal here working on such a system (in concept anyway).
- 201709User 9y agoThen machine learning it is.
- sideshowb 9y agoGive them a break. It's a pop science article. Such articles can describe 1.5 concepts at most, so having used that budget on p-values, it's not available for Bayes, so explaining the concept from a frequentist perspective is reasonable. Also Bayesian analysis (as a mainstream stats technique) is relatively new as it has only become mainstream with the advent of cheap computing power.