Difference between revisions of "Sandbox"

From ChanceWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<blockquote>This illustrates why the controversy over statistical significance is exaggerated. Whether you consider the first or second analysis, the observed effect of the Thai candidates was either just above or below the level of statistical significance. Statisticians will tell you it is possible to observe an effect and have reason to think it’s real even if it’s not statistically significant. And if you think it’s real, you ought to examine it carefully.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>This illustrates why the controversy over statistical significance is exaggerated. Whether you consider the first or second analysis, the observed effect of the Thai candidates was either just above or below the level of statistical significance. Statisticians will tell you it is possible to observe an effect and have reason to think it’s real even if it’s not statistically significant. And if you think it’s real, you ought to examine it carefully.</blockquote>
  
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19berkley.html?scp=1&sq=seth%20berkley&st New York Times}
+
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19berkley.html?scp=1&sq=seth%20berkley&st New York Times]
 
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
 
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
 
Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine
 
Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine

Revision as of 16:02, 24 October 2009

This illustrates why the controversy over statistical significance is exaggerated. Whether you consider the first or second analysis, the observed effect of the Thai candidates was either just above or below the level of statistical significance. Statisticians will tell you it is possible to observe an effect and have reason to think it’s real even if it’s not statistically significant. And if you think it’s real, you ought to examine it carefully.

New York Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine

SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND TWITTER SIGN IN TO E-MAIL PRINT SHARE CLOSE

By SETH BERKLEY