[R] OT Sorta: Odds Are, It's Wrong...
marc_schwartz at me.com
Mon Mar 15 18:46:42 CET 2010
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Ted Harding wrote:
> On 15-Mar-10 16:22:13, Marc Schwartz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I thought that readers of R-Help might find the following article at
>> ScienceNews of interest:
>> Odds Are, It's Wrong
>> Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics
>> By Tom Siegfried
>> March 27th, 2010; Vol.177 #7 (p. 26)
>> Marc Schwartz
> If you changed your Subject to "Odds R, it's wrong", arc, you might get
> more on-topic, Marc. Or at least increase people's subjective beliefs
> that it was OT.
Yep, that was just way too obvious, wasn't it...Arrrrr...
I plead low serum glucose level this morning, after having some fasting blood work drawn... :-)
> That's not a bad article, as such things go!
> I was reminded of reading, many moons ago in a book by John Ziman,
> words to the effect that:
> "If your experiment gives a result significant at the 5 per cent
> level, then 1 in 20 of your colleagues is entitled to disblieve
> Ziman, John (1968).
> Public Knowledge: Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science.
> Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-06894-0.
> I don't have the book immediately to hand (though I have it somewhere),
> so cannot vouch that the above is verbatim. However, it's not far off,
> and the final clause very probably is verbatim.
In turn, that reminds me of Stephen Senn's writing in Dicing with Death: Chance, Risk and Health:
"We can predict nothing with certainty but we can predict how uncertain our predictions will be, on average that is."
More information about the R-help