maybe my presentation was unclear. i seem to have given the impression that i am really quite dim... > You should really get used to the idea that stating a di

maybe my presentation was unclear. i seem to have given the impression that i am really quite dim... > You should really get used to the idea that stating a different problem will give you a different answer this is entirely normal and expected since ever i can remember... what i'm saying is that you can analyse the same data in two different ways and reach differing conclusions because of the nature of the p-value (vs. the nature of, well... nature) what i was mainly trying to get across is that a coin being biased towards heads /logically infers that/ it is biased. so the idea that 5 heads in a row is less evidence of a coin being biased than it is that it is biased towards heads is not only counter-intuitive but in disagreement with a much stronger and more intuitive form of reasoning. the fact that the p-values are different in these cases leads me to expect that p-values on their own are not a good indicator of strength of evidence without a lot more context - and /really/ understanding what that context is and means - in which case why use the value at all? nobody else is likely to interpret it correctly unless you lay it out that way which then negates the supposed utility of the p-value... and yes, i intuitively consider 5 heads in a row to be unspectacular for a fair coin certainly not a 19/20 chance that it is biased (maybe i am very, very wrong though).