3 ms·
It needs more statistical analysis than I have the background to do. However all signs look to another variation of the replication crisis, which is more an mo
by bluGill 3mo ago
It needs more statistical analysis than I have the background to do. However all signs look to another variation of the replication crisis, which is more an more my default assumption when I see an observational study.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoYou're handwaving. The xkcd point only applies if you're within ~3 sigma. This isn't a complicated statistical analysis it's just asking how far out the outlier is versus the standard deviation and size of the dataset. To be clear I'm not claiming in one direction or the other. I feel that if you're going to attempt to discredit a piece of work it's on you to do such a basic check. Really the whole point of that xkcd was to viscerally illustrate the practical effect of binary misclassification, or alternatively to make the point that a p of 0.05 isn't necessarily as rigorous as you might expect. Neither of those things directly applies here.
- bluGill 3mo agoThe article doesn't give enough information to answer your question. It isn't on me it is on the reporter's who shouldn't allow a handwave like that to pass without question. There are far to many cases of people hacking statistics in the world to accept that.