3 ms·
I think the point is that given the size of the error bars, that much precision is not an accurate representation of the confidence we should have in the result
by andreareina 6y ago
I think the point is that given the size of the error bars, that much precision is not an accurate representation of the confidence we should have in the result. 25.68% might be the observed change, but it's not one we should have much confidence of being accurate, not to four significant figures. Glibly put, it's false precision.
No-one I've seen arguing for fewer significant digits says that a probability of 0.999 should be rounded to 1. Nor do they say it's ok to round 0.5 to 0.
- gliptic 6y agoThere's no false precision. There's a whopping +/- 40% error bar! What can be said is that 26% is at least less precise on average. You've added a completely arbitrary 0.32 because of some obsession with decimals.
- andreareina 6y agoI think we're in agreement that the 0.32 is false precision?
- gliptic 6y agoNo, because there's an error bar. Why is 0.32 the false precision and not some other random number.
- sfkdjf9j3j 6y agoI think if you're doing this level of nit-picking, it's far more likely that somewhere along the line a scientist used a 32 bit floating point in their analysis and blew the precision out of the water before the number even got to you.