5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 00:39, September 22, 2008
, 00:39, September 22, 2008→Point 5 Confirmed
::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, "Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the reciprocal of its squared standard error." It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to insisting should be done.
::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>