4 ms·
I think you skimmed a bit fast: "Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies w
by noelwelsh 15y ago
I think you skimmed a bit fast:
"Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was made."
- fluidcruft 15y agoIn other words, you're arguing that the title should be: "50% of 31% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error." ?
- numeromancer 15y agoHow about "50% of eligible neuroscience papers assume that statistical significance is transitive.".
- kevinalexbrown 15y agoYeah, even if I have a 50% chance of getting slapped in the face when I tell someone they're ugly, if I'm not doing it all the time, that doesn't mean 50% of my interactions involve me getting slapped. Likewise, if there's a 50% chance that a neuroscientist messed up a particular kind of analysis, because they don't do it all the time means that less than 50% of neuroscience papers will contain that error. Still, it's embarrassing.
- vacri 15y agoThat misrepresentation is a greater error than the article is complaining about.