Hi all, I thought that readers of R-Help might find the following article at ScienceNews of interest: Odds Are, It's Wrong Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics By Tom Siegfried March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26) http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong Regards, Marc Schwartz
On 15-Mar-10 16:22:13, Marc Schwartz wrote:> Hi all, > I thought that readers of R-Help might find the following article at > ScienceNews of interest: > > Odds Are, It's Wrong > Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics > By Tom Siegfried > March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26) > > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wro > ng > > Regards, > Marc SchwartzIf you changed your Subject to "Odds R, it's wrong", arc, you might get more on-topic, Marc. Or at least increase people's subjective beliefs that it was OT. That's not a bad article, as such things go! I was reminded of reading, many moons ago in a book[1] by John Ziman[2], words to the effect that[3]: "If your experiment gives a result significant at the 5 per cent level, then 1 in 20 of your colleagues is entitled to disblieve you." [1] Ziman, John (1968). Public Knowledge: Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-06894-0. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ziman [3] I don't have the book immediately to hand (though I have it somewhere), so cannot vouch that the above is verbatim. However, it's not far off, and the final clause very probably is verbatim. Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 15-Mar-10 Time: 17:21:02 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 03/16/2010 03:22 AM, Marc Schwartz wrote:> Hi all, > > I thought that readers of R-Help might find the following article at ScienceNews of interest: > > Odds Are, It's Wrong > Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics > By Tom Siegfried > March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26) > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong > >The real problem with statistics may not be that it is so hard to learn, but that it is so easy to forget. Jim
Marc Schwartz-3 wrote:> > I thought that readers of R-Help might find the following article at > ScienceNews of interest: > > Odds Are, It's Wrong > Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics > By Tom Siegfried > March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26) > > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong > >Too bad the article is so long that all my p-value-greedy colleagues from the medical faculty won't read it. Journals should apply a post-hoc Bonferroni-correction by the number of p-values cited in an article. Dieter -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/OT-Sorta-Odds-Are-It-s-Wrong-tp1593626p1594511.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Apparently Analagous Threads
- Off-Topic: Crime Statistics Don't Pay
- WAAAYYY OFF TOPIC -- For Statistics Buffs only
- etherboot 5.3.14 and pxelinux keyboard problem
- OT Sorta: Strouhal Numbers, Unladen Swallows and Monthy Python....
- Samba 1.9.18 on Unixware 2.1.2, Makefile problem (& solution, sorta)