5 ms·

>"a field where you don't need statistics" I feel some topics are getting confused here. Now you seem to be saying "a field that doesn't need statistics" only

by nonbel 8y ago

>"a field where you don't need statistics" I feel some topics are getting confused here. Now you seem to be saying "a field that doesn't need statistics" only doesn't need it because the error due to QM is negligible compared to other sources. How do you account for all the advances before QM and statistics?

whatshisface 8y ago
If you have predictively modeled an error source you can subtract it, and then you're left with error sources that you have not modeled. If this is repeated indefinitely you will end up with transistor noise and quantum effects which cannot be modeled. As a result you will always have some aspects of your experiment that must be dealt with statistically. If a field is getting by without expecting its contributors to do statistics it is either a straggler before we realized this aspect of rigor or it is a case where the effects are so large that a nonrigorous detection of them works well enough. Discoveries made before the introduction of error analysis turned out to either be lucky or wrong - a pattern repeated every time we all realize that something was being overlooked. It's worth pointing out that the astronomers of yore probably knew that their measurements weren't perfect and that averaging them was a good idea, which counts as statistics.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"If a field is getting by without expecting its contributors to do statistics it is either a straggler before we realized this aspect of rigor or it is a case where the effects are so large that a nonrigorous detection of them works well enough." It makes no sense to be concerned about sources of prediction error that are orders of magnitude smaller than your measurement error. Such concerns would only waste time and money for no benefit. This has nothing to do with "straggling" or expected "effect size".
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    It sure sounds like you're describing large effect sizes to me. The size of the effect you're measuring is large compared to signal uncertainty, and incidentally your systemics are also high.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      So you want to use "effect size" to mean "deviation from prediction"?
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        You compare the effect sizes with the measurement uncertainty. For example if I wanted to conclude that a solenoid worked I could correlate piston position with applied voltage, and I might not need to worry about statistics because the motion of the piston is very large compared to the uncertainty in my implicit visual measurement of its movement. Admittedly that's not how anybody thinks intuitively, but it is correct.
        nonbel 8y ago
        >"For example if I wanted to conclude that a solenoid worked I could correlate piston position with applied voltage" No one would do this, its once again a "rudimentary science" behavior. People have figured out what we need to know to get the exact relationship between voltage and position.

by nonbel 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

If you have predictively modeled an error source you can subtract it, and then you're left with error sources that you have not modeled. If this is repeated indefinitely you will end up with transistor noise and quantum effects which cannot be modeled. As a result you will always have some aspects of your experiment that must be dealt with statistically. If a field is getting by without expecting its contributors to do statistics it is either a straggler before we realized this aspect of rigor or it is a case where the effects are so large that a nonrigorous detection of them works well enough. Discoveries made before the introduction of error analysis turned out to either be lucky or wrong - a pattern repeated every time we all realize that something was being overlooked. It's worth pointing out that the astronomers of yore probably knew that their measurements weren't perfect and that averaging them was a good idea, which counts as statistics.

nonbel 8y ago
>"If a field is getting by without expecting its contributors to do statistics it is either a straggler before we realized this aspect of rigor or it is a case where the effects are so large that a nonrigorous detection of them works well enough." It makes no sense to be concerned about sources of prediction error that are orders of magnitude smaller than your measurement error. Such concerns would only waste time and money for no benefit. This has nothing to do with "straggling" or expected "effect size".
- whatshisface 8y ago
  It sure sounds like you're describing large effect sizes to me. The size of the effect you're measuring is large compared to signal uncertainty, and incidentally your systemics are also high.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    So you want to use "effect size" to mean "deviation from prediction"?
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      You compare the effect sizes with the measurement uncertainty. For example if I wanted to conclude that a solenoid worked I could correlate piston position with applied voltage, and I might not need to worry about statistics because the motion of the piston is very large compared to the uncertainty in my implicit visual measurement of its movement. Admittedly that's not how anybody thinks intuitively, but it is correct.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        >"For example if I wanted to conclude that a solenoid worked I could correlate piston position with applied voltage" No one would do this, its once again a "rudimentary science" behavior. People have figured out what we need to know to get the exact relationship between voltage and position.