On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 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. > > > > No, man. You're doing it wrong. The chance you're calculating is if they made exactly 14720 experiments, and all of them hit. If they made 3*1470 experiments, and the chance of a misread is 1/3, then you would *expect* something close to 1470 hits.
