4 ms·
I've met Steve Luck multiple times over the last decade. He is a very rigorous and insightful scientist, with expertise in a wide range of methods (especially e
by SubiculumCode 9y ago
I've met Steve Luck multiple times over the last decade. He is a very rigorous and insightful scientist, with expertise in a wide range of methods (especially eeg) and psychological phenomena. His wife Prof. Lisa Oaks may be even more impressive in these regards, but that is an aside. The point I would like to make though is that there are lots of aspects to research and stats is just one part to master of many. It should not be up to a neuroscientist to make posts like this. The stats community should be actively pushing the scientific community to alternatives that match interpretative intuition with reality of the statistical metric.
- nonbel 9y agoI went through the same thing. I was taught the same half-assed BS statistics with all the wrong interpretations and was surrounded by people just following along with that. Still, it was a point of duty/honor for me to figure out what these statistical results meant. How is interpreting results not a key part of a scientists job? I guess if you don't want to bother learning to interpret results then you can do science by either being a lab tech or theorist.