# Difference between revisions of "Sandbox"

From ChanceWiki

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> | ||

− | <div align=right>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19berkley.html?scp=1&sq=seth%20berkley&st New York Times] | + | <div align=right>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19berkley.html?scp=1&sq=seth%20berkley&st New York Times]<br> |

− | + | op-ed contributor<br> | |

− | Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine< | + | Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine<br> |

− | + | Seth Berkley</div align=right> | |

− |

## Revision as of 16:11, 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.