On 24.10.2012 20:31 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Comments?
Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant
are indicative of bias errors. I'd wager a proper Bayesian analysis
of the original data will show they *support* the null hypothesis
(c.f. "Testing Precise Hypotheses" Berger & Delampady, Stat Sci 1987
v2 no. 3 317-352 and "Odds Are It's Wrong" Tom Siegfried, Science
News 27 Mar 2010). Meta-analyses are notoriously unreliable and
should only be considered suggestive at a best.
It is a general situations with a statistical treatment. When people
like results based on mathematical statistics, as for example
correlations in a neurosience, they say that this is a good science. And
when people do not like statistical results, they can always say woo-woo.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
