Cude apparently said: > Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing > Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs > statistics, you should have done a better experiment. > This seems to be Cude's latest excuse to dismiss the research. Let me reiterate: No, these experiments *do not* need statistics. You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good one suffices.
Statistics are icing on the cake. A Bayesian analysis reveals interesting things about the results. But it is not necessary. Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 orders of magnitude." - Jed
