4 ms·
I second the motion in the comments that people should pedantically correct "statistically significant" as "statistically detectable".
by ludamad 12y ago
I second the motion in the comments that people should pedantically correct "statistically significant" as "statistically detectable".
- abecedarius 12y agoI dunno. If we're going to change the name and try to be precise, I'd go for "subjunctively unlikely": a certain random experiment, if run, would probably not produce results at least this extreme. It doesn't just foreground what's actually claimed, it's easier to say -- 7 syllables versus 8.