oops, I meant to say thousands of orders of magnitude
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >
