2 ms·
>"If this is true, how does that work if the fundamental conclusion re the relationship of 2 entities is the inverse of what you expect?" Not quite sure what y
by nonbel 8y ago
>"If this is true, how does that work if the fundamental conclusion re the relationship of 2 entities is the inverse of what you expect?"
Not quite sure what you are trying to say but this doesnt sound like any statistical model I've seen used in social science.
Usually they assume some distribution (eg normal, or "t") and then assume both samples are taken from that distribution. From that they derive the proportion of times you would see the observed difference in means between samples.
- chrisfinazzo 8y agoIt's really the exceptional case I'm thinking of here. Basically, you screw up such that the data you've collected is meaningless. Sure, you could do the statistical analysis correctly and get a result, but it ends up being the opposite not because the relationship is actually different, but because some part of your design is flawed. In that case, you would never end up with a correct result. (This is of course the worst possible outcome, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it here.) Although I have no background in it, I suppose the same could happen in the other sciences if there are side effects that you don't anticipate and don't measure accurately enough. ^ This again is why reproducibility is important. Earlier in this thread, @majidazmi mentioned that a major focus of their thesis was to prove that a prior experiment was incorrect in its findings.