nonbel

99 ms·

901.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"The H_0 I gave corresponds to an infinite set of models and not a single one" How do you calculate a p-value based on this infinite set of models? Normally it is done using just one.
902.
by nonbel 9y ago
I'm saying that unless you have bothered to derive a statistical model from your theory, and you believe that theory may actually be correct, then you know that you will reject your model if enough time/money is spent on testing i
903.
by nonbel 9y ago
I am arguing in good faith. There may be some cases in physics where there is some theoretical distribution derived related specifically to the problem, and they believe the model to be actually 100% true. Otherwise, the model should be ass
904.
by nonbel 9y ago
>“how safe is it to conclude that H_0 is not true” I would just take "very safe" as a principle, there is even the truism "all models are wrong". >"the difference between two groups is less than a certain amou
905.
by nonbel 9y ago
I went through the same thing. I was taught the same half-assed BS statistics with all the wrong interpretations and was surrounded by people just following along with that. Still, it was a point of duty/honor for me to figure out what
906.
by nonbel 9y ago
It isn't so much that there is no "truthful link", it is that everything is linked to everything else to some degree and the mathematical models they use for the null hypothesis are just "defaults". These assumption
907.
by nonbel 9y ago
Thanks, fixed.
908.
by nonbel 9y ago
I don't follow your argument. You've got two premises: 1) You are saying that people are committing the transposing the conditional fallacy: p(H0|data) != p(data|H0): - OK 2) You say to use Bayes theorem to get the value we want:
909.
by nonbel 9y ago
> "That isn't a question that any statistical approach will help you with. There's a reason we talk in terms of "rejecting" or "failing to reject" a hypothesis. We don't do statistical tests to acc
910.
by nonbel 9y ago
tldr: The author got a PhD in 1993[1] and is just now figuring out that p-values are not false positive rates [1] http://mindbrain.ucdavis.edu/people/sjluck I was lucky and figured it out before getting a degree. Its go
911.
by nonbel 9y ago
> "Through our analysis, we wanted to study user behavior towards the Page Previews feature to answer the following questions: How often do people use the feature to preview other pages? We set a threshold of 1000ms (one second) for
912.
by nonbel 9y ago
This doesn't sound "commented" at all. It sounds like you are talking about conditional statements/loops.
913.
by nonbel 9y ago
Looks like there are some people trying to use the "anti-smoking" campaign as a blueprint for an "anti-gun" campaign. I found a couple links like this when I searched: http://theconversation.com/public-he
914.
by nonbel 9y ago
Thanks, looking closer at the Yetter paper: >"Normal cadaveric splenic volumes reported by Loftus et al. [8] are 26–250 cm3 with a mean volume of 110 cm3 and an SD of 70 cm3. Henderson et al. [19] reported a normal splenic volume of
915.
by nonbel 9y ago
I think they did look at "other" spleen sizes and just chose not to mention it. This really just looks like another case of "reject null hypothesis -> conclude whatever we want".
916.
by nonbel 9y ago
If so, then the relevant measure should have been spleen volume to body mass ratio...
917.
by nonbel 9y ago
It is common sense to check your control group measurements against the literature and see where they stand. I would also expect to mention the results of that search in the paper. Looking closer at the paper I see they also had some spleen
918.
by nonbel 9y ago
This is so ridiculous I'll repeat it in this thread. The "enlarged spleens" they saw (~200 cm^3) are actually closer to half the size of typical spleens according to their own reference for spleen measurement (~500 cm^3). T
919.
by nonbel 9y ago
It looks worse than that. In figure 1 of the paper[1] they only make a comparison between Bajau and Saluan populations. They show the "enlarged spleens" have volume of ~200 cm^3. However, if you look at humans overall, apparently
920.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"If the average person was getting a hundred calls a day to the point where they couldn't use their phone service, something would happen." This does seem to be the endgame. The last excuse I heard was "what if a fri
921.
by nonbel 9y ago
Where are you seeing this? In every HN thread about some medical trial it is the same complaint about small sample size. It is like a generic complaint thrown by people who don't realize that they are almost all like that...
922.
by nonbel 9y ago
They always cherry pick who is included in clinical trials and I don't hear the same complaints about that.
923.
by nonbel 9y ago
Why do you think 24 people is too small a study?
924.
by nonbel 9y ago
> "No one in this thread, or in the article, has claimed that gray matter is randomly distributed." I simply cannot imagine what you think is going on in order for them to be looking at "clumping" of gray matter as a
925.
by nonbel 9y ago
The gray/white/pial matter is not randomly distributed in the tissue so that there would be more or less clumping of gray matter. I thought maybe you had some expertise regarding how they processed the data that could somehow make
926.
by nonbel 9y ago
You quoted it (I guess besides white matter it could also be just to the pia): >"for each gray matter voxel we computed the distance to the closest non-gray matter voxel." I do admit that whatever they did is difficult to follo
927.
by nonbel 9y ago
Why do you think this?
928.
by nonbel 9y ago
Their description sounds like literal thickness. They took the distance to the border (white matter) of all the points in a region. This is like the radius of a circle, and then multiplied by 2, to get a value like the diameter of a circle.
929.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"I don't know of any literature that says that a sedentary lifestyle is healthy for the brain" Here are two I found: >"More sedentary behavior was strongly predictive of more depressive symptomatology and, unexpec
930.
by nonbel 9y ago
I think it is literal thickness since they report the results in units of millimeters. (eg figure 2)

More ›