On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstractComments?
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.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
