On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote:
> What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were > the result of error. It is exceedingly small. > No. That would be the result if there were no negative results in between. If you throw N dice, the chance they all come up 6 is (1/6)^N. But if you throw 6N dice, on average N will come up 6. So, if the chance is 1/3 that you get a false positive excess heat, and 1/3 of cold fusion experiments show heat, then they could all be by chance, no matter how big N is. When you make insipid arguments based on unjustifiable assumptions, you should at least try to get the math right. > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread. If >>>> one considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess >>>> heat event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications >>>> are on record. >>>> >>> >>> That is a form of Bayesian analysis, I think. >>> >>> >> No it's not. It's just ordinary probability theory, and it's not even >> right. That calculation gives the probability of getting N *consecutive* >> replications. The probability of rolling 6 on an ordinary die is 1/6, but >> it's easy to get N sixes (on average) just by throwing the die 6N times. >> >> It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis that >> emphasizes the absence of a single experiment that will give an expected >> result. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
