3 ms·

> but this kind of subgroup analysis also runs into the multiple comparisons problem. If you test all kinds of subgroups (or just do a lot of any kind of tests)

> but this kind of subgroup analysis also runs into the multiple comparisons problem. If you test all kinds of subgroups (or just do a lot of any kind of tests), chances are good that you will run into false positives. As I said, the issue is statistics based "knowledge". What you just said just continues down that path, so of course it does not solve the problem, actually makes it worse because now we throw more randomness at randomness and get random matches - but still not one bit more understanding.

cultus 8y ago
Most all knowledge is "statistics based." Anytime you are not 100% sure about something, then your knowledge about that thing is inherently probabilistic. There is absolutely no way around it. You can't get away from statistics. You can only replace bad statistics with good. If you ignore these statistical aspects of an experiment such as multiple comparisons, then your reasoning is even worse! You can't just "decide" to not use "statistics based knowledge" any more than you can decide that your experiment is not subject to uncertainty or error. You could say that, but that doesn't make it true. Bayesian statistics are much more intuitive, however. Baye's theorem is actually the generalization of contrapositivity (If A implies B, then not A implies not B) to situations where we are not certain of A and B.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Why do you re-interpret what I wrote instead of going with what I wrote? Why do you lecture me about things that I didn't write?
  - cultus 8y ago
    >As I said, the issue is statistics based "knowledge". What you just said just continues down that path, so of course it does not solve the problem, actually makes it worse because now we throw more randomness at randomness and get random matches - but still not one bit more understanding. You seem to be saying that nothing is gained with statistics knowledge, and attempting to use better statistics is just throwing "randomness upon randomness." If this isn't true, then you are being unclear. All of your criticisms about statistics are very vague, and do not cite any specific problems. I gain understanding from "statistics-based knowledge." If you do not, then that is a problem you should solve by reading more about these issues.

cultus 8y ago

Most all knowledge is "statistics based." Anytime you are not 100% sure about something, then your knowledge about that thing is inherently probabilistic. There is absolutely no way around it. You can't get away from statistics. You can only replace bad statistics with good. If you ignore these statistical aspects of an experiment such as multiple comparisons, then your reasoning is even worse! You can't just "decide" to not use "statistics based knowledge" any more than you can decide that your experiment is not subject to uncertainty or error. You could say that, but that doesn't make it true. Bayesian statistics are much more intuitive, however. Baye's theorem is actually the generalization of contrapositivity (If A implies B, then not A implies not B) to situations where we are not certain of A and B.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Why do you re-interpret what I wrote instead of going with what I wrote? Why do you lecture me about things that I didn't write?
- cultus 8y ago
  >As I said, the issue is statistics based "knowledge". What you just said just continues down that path, so of course it does not solve the problem, actually makes it worse because now we throw more randomness at randomness and get random matches - but still not one bit more understanding. You seem to be saying that nothing is gained with statistics knowledge, and attempting to use better statistics is just throwing "randomness upon randomness." If this isn't true, then you are being unclear. All of your criticisms about statistics are very vague, and do not cite any specific problems. I gain understanding from "statistics-based knowledge." If you do not, then that is a problem you should solve by reading more about these issues.