4 ms·

This article seems to agree that 3 sigma simply means "1 in 1000 possibility the result is a coincidence". I'm not sure what difference removing the word "stati

by spuz 6y ago

This article seems to agree that 3 sigma simply means "1 in 1000 possibility the result is a coincidence". I'm not sure what difference removing the word "statistical" makes here or why the BBC explanation is wrong.

Kaibeezy 6y ago
Yeah, I’m not exactly getting why BBC is wrong either. Re “statistical”, to me, it sort of implies all sources of error or variability were provably not present (prove a negative) and the only reason for a coincidental result was a statistical anomaly. What’s got to be far more likely is some unaccounted-for variable produced the coincidental result.
trehalose 6y ago
The article does seem to agree, and it's wrong just like the BBC article. Here's an old article from the time of the Higgs Boson discovery that had a great explanation: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigma... > Chances are, you heard this month about the discovery of a tiny fundamental physics particle that may be the long-sought Higgs boson. The phrase five-sigma was tossed about by scientists to describe the strength of the discovery. So, what does five-sigma mean? > In short, five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3x10-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is not the probability that the Higgs boson does or doesn't exist; rather, it is the probability that if the particle does not exist, the data that CERN scientists collected in Geneva, Switzerland, would be at least as extreme as what they observed. "The reason that it's so annoying is that people want to hear declarative statements, like 'The probability that there's a Higgs is 99.9 percent,' but the real statement has an 'if' in there. There's a conditional. There's no way to remove the conditional," says Kyle Cranmer, a physicist at New York University and member of the ATLAS team, one of the two groups that announced the new particle results in Geneva on July 4.
- spuz 6y ago
  Thanks - I think that does explain some of the potential area of confusion. However, I don't agree that the BBC's explanation differs from what the true meaning is according to this Scientific American article says. The BBC article says: > The measurement from LHCb is three-sigma - meaning there is roughly a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence My interpretation of this is "If there was no new physics, then there is a 1/1000 chance the same result could be measured by coincidence." I understand why some people may interpret this as "There is a 1/1000 chance that there is no new physics" though.
  - DavidSJ 6y ago
    "There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence", grammatically, presumes the measurement which did in fact occur and says something about the chance that a statistical coincidence did, in fact, happen. It's P(hypothesis | data). This is a classic no-no in science writing. "There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement would arise by statistical coincidence" uses the conditional, (implicitly) presuming a hypothesis and saying something about the chance that, under that hypothesis, such a measurement as occurred would occur. It's P(data | hypothesis).
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    I agree, I understand the difference between the conditionals, but was trying to get what the OP was criticising. I think this is much more a interpretation of language issue than a correct/incorrect in the formal sense issue.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    >"There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence", grammatically, presumes the measurement which did in fact occur and says something about the chance that a statistical coincidence did, in fact, happen. It's P(hypothesis | data). This is a classic no-no in science writing. >"There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement would arise by statistical coincidence" uses the subjunctive, (implicitly) presuming a hypothesis and saying something about the chance that, under that hypothesis, such a measurement as occurred would occur. It's P(data | hypothesis). I now see your criticism and I agree the subjunctive is much clearer. I guess my brain just converts the other wording into yours whenever I read text like that.

by spuz 6y ago

Kaibeezy 6y ago

Yeah, I’m not exactly getting why BBC is wrong either. Re “statistical”, to me, it sort of implies all sources of error or variability were provably not present (prove a negative) and the only reason for a coincidental result was a statistical anomaly. What’s got to be far more likely is some unaccounted-for variable produced the coincidental result.

trehalose 6y ago

The article does seem to agree, and it's wrong just like the BBC article. Here's an old article from the time of the Higgs Boson discovery that had a great explanation: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigma... > Chances are, you heard this month about the discovery of a tiny fundamental physics particle that may be the long-sought Higgs boson. The phrase five-sigma was tossed about by scientists to describe the strength of the discovery. So, what does five-sigma mean? > In short, five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3x10-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is not the probability that the Higgs boson does or doesn't exist; rather, it is the probability that if the particle does not exist, the data that CERN scientists collected in Geneva, Switzerland, would be at least as extreme as what they observed. "The reason that it's so annoying is that people want to hear declarative statements, like 'The probability that there's a Higgs is 99.9 percent,' but the real statement has an 'if' in there. There's a conditional. There's no way to remove the conditional," says Kyle Cranmer, a physicist at New York University and member of the ATLAS team, one of the two groups that announced the new particle results in Geneva on July 4.

spuz 6y ago
Thanks - I think that does explain some of the potential area of confusion. However, I don't agree that the BBC's explanation differs from what the true meaning is according to this Scientific American article says. The BBC article says: > The measurement from LHCb is three-sigma - meaning there is roughly a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence My interpretation of this is "If there was no new physics, then there is a 1/1000 chance the same result could be measured by coincidence." I understand why some people may interpret this as "There is a 1/1000 chance that there is no new physics" though.
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  "There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence", grammatically, presumes the measurement which did in fact occur and says something about the chance that a statistical coincidence did, in fact, happen. It's P(hypothesis | data). This is a classic no-no in science writing. "There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement would arise by statistical coincidence" uses the conditional, (implicitly) presuming a hypothesis and saying something about the chance that, under that hypothesis, such a measurement as occurred would occur. It's P(data | hypothesis).
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I agree, I understand the difference between the conditionals, but was trying to get what the OP was criticising. I think this is much more a interpretation of language issue than a correct/incorrect in the formal sense issue.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  >"There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence", grammatically, presumes the measurement which did in fact occur and says something about the chance that a statistical coincidence did, in fact, happen. It's P(hypothesis | data). This is a classic no-no in science writing. >"There is a one in 1,000 chance that the measurement would arise by statistical coincidence" uses the subjunctive, (implicitly) presuming a hypothesis and saying something about the chance that, under that hypothesis, such a measurement as occurred would occur. It's P(data | hypothesis). I now see your criticism and I agree the subjunctive is much clearer. I guess my brain just converts the other wording into yours whenever I read text like that.