2 ms·
> I gave a citation. You clearly don't understand the meaning of "citation" among scientists. You posted a quote from a press release that didn't even pretend
by lutusp 12y ago
> I gave a citation.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of "citation" among scientists. You posted a quote from a press release that didn't even pretend to be a scientific assessment of the work.
> The quote is more than enough evidence
Press releases aren't evidence. Were this not the case, Bigfoot would come into existence on the strength of his press coverage.
> They didn't give a p-value
So, which is it? "The quote is more than enough evidence", or "They didn't give a p-value"? They cannot both be true.
> ... but the reported effect size is quite huge to be chance, and the study included thousands of people.
I can see you have no idea how science works.
> ... to disprove your naive "the researchers didn't bother to test for regression to mean"
You are also not above inventing positions for other people.
- Houshalter 12y agoI never said anything about "science". Only that your accusations are garbage. It's one thing to say "let's not take this too seriously because they haven't published anything yet", which I don't even know is true, but whatever. However you went above and beyond that: * claiming their methodology was "retrospective design" * claiming they picked statistical outliers and didn't bother to test if they continued to make good predictions: "The described program collects forecasts, forecasts that can be expected to be half right and half wrong for binary questions, throws out those that by chance were wrong, and preserves those that by chance were right." * various insults: they don't understand logic, statistics, it's pseudoscience, etc. * claim they twisted language to make failed forecasts look successful. * claim they didn't do any statistical analysis