what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an .... ok 10 words or less version.
In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else right, these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it won't occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a rather fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I don't have that right then fine, tell me, but if you're going to crank up your statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand at ALL. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at > statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as > follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a > significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you replicated > the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall very > close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that > spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. > It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller > sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical > significance. > > So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small samples. It > all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out > to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good > explanation of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at > >> all for the crap you've been talking. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: > >> > > >> > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat > >> > you with experience > >> > > >> > . > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 > people > >> > >> and 28 people. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd > >> call > >> > it > >> > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same > >> hypothesis. > >> > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug > are a > >> > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's > methodology. > >> > And, > >> > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them > may > >> > have > >> > > said in an interview... > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> PURE BS! > >> > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they > >> > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have > said > >> > if > >> > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but > let's > >> > cut > >> > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I > >> > suppose > >> > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or > you) > >> > > seriously at this point. > >> > > > >> > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > >> > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's > completely > >> > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is > wrong > >> > > with the science? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station > that > >> > > > >> > > some people took seriously. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > different set of events. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Again if it was tied to anything right > >> > >> leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously > science > >> > >> can never be wrong. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is > >> > > something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral > >> > indignation > >> > > at something said by someone that did not even participate-- > >> > > then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a > hypothesis > >> > and a > >> > > clinical study for fuck's sake > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> I decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > >> > >> DON'T AGREE WITH ME. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of > the > >> > > selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're > offended. > >> > I'm > >> > > sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to > say" > >> > mean > >> > > "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do > you > >> > >> not pay attention? > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... > doing > >> > > whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch > likArchive: > > http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346951 > > Subscription: > http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm > > Unsubscribe: > http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm > > > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons > > There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has > been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding > its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false > notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your > knowledge." - Issac Asimov > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346960 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
