3 ms·
>"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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSo you want to use "effect size" to mean "deviation from prediction"?
- whatshisface 8y agoYou 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.