189
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 199:
Line 199: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 18:33, September 17, 2008
, 18:33, September 17, 2008→Statistics examples: new section
The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.
The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.
== Statistics examples ==
I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can
give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say
I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis.
So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose
in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con."
If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!),
appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)