No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> 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." >>> >>> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, >>> at least get the math right. >>> >>> >> >> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications >> were the result of error. >> > > No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. > Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you. > > >
