2 ms·
Right... multiple testing correction, false-discovery rates, etc... I'm quite familiar. (Even if they did correct for multiple tests, I think the sub-group wou
by mbreese 13y ago
Right... multiple testing correction, false-discovery rates, etc... I'm quite familiar.
(Even if they did correct for multiple tests, I think the sub-group would have potentially been significant. An uncorrected p-value of 0.004 is what is sticking in my head).
But the point is, just because he's bad at statistics does that make it fraud? Based on what we know from the article, I'd argue no. People are allowed to be wrong and make mistakes in their analysis. They just aren't allowed to knowingly make those mistakes. And this is what we don't know... what he knew and what he thought at the time.
- x0x0 13y agosure, but when people deliberately lie in order to gain millions of dollars, I can't get that upset when they get 6 months stuck in their house he, and statisticians at his company, knew or should have known what he was doing was wrong. This stuff is covered in the first inferential stats course taken as an undergrad.