n***3
发帖数: 663 | | D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 2 一方面大家说我的data很solid啊你看看差距都这么明显了都这么significant了一群二
货reviewers老说说我这个不确定那个不确定让补一大堆实验浪费我一年的时间你们这
些二货能不能深入理解一下我伟大的思想
另一方面这种文章一出来大家就说啊我老早就说了你看看科学家都是一群大忽悠的做的
实验算算屁value就发文章谁知道有多少是真的科学界被他们搞得乌烟瘴气
呵呵 | s*****j
发帖数: 6435 | 3 it is all bullshit.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 一方面大家说我的data很solid啊你看看差距都这么明显了都这么significant了一群二
: 货reviewers老说说我这个不确定那个不确定让补一大堆实验浪费我一年的时间你们这
: 些二货能不能深入理解一下我伟大的思想
: 另一方面这种文章一出来大家就说啊我老早就说了你看看科学家都是一群大忽悠的做的
: 实验算算屁value就发文章谁知道有多少是真的科学界被他们搞得乌烟瘴气
: 呵呵
| T****i
发帖数: 15191 | 4 我以前就说过，差距很小的statistical significance 很可能不是biological
significance。下面这个例子说的很明白：
Critics also bemoan the way that P values can encourage muddled thinking. A
prime example is their tendency to deflect attention from the actual size of
an effect. Last year, for example, a study of more than 19,000 people
showed8 that those who meet their spouses online are less likely to divorce
(p < 0.002) and more likely to have high marital satisfaction (p < 0.001)
than those who meet offline (see Nature http://doi.org/rcg; 2013). That might have sounded impressive, but the effects were actually tiny: meeting online nudged the divorce rate from 7.67% down to 5.96%, and barely budged happiness from 5.48 to 5.64 on a 7-point scale. To pounce on tiny P values and ignore the larger question is to fall prey to the “seductive certainty of significance”, says Geoff Cumming, an emeritus psychologist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. But significance is no indicator of practical relevance, he says: “We should be asking, 'How much of an effect is there?', not 'Is there an effect?'”
很多时候，人们还用SEM代替SD来让差别看起来更大。
我认为差别不是很大但又statistical significant的结果，应该有其他实验支持，才
能说是不是有生物学意义。
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 一方面大家说我的data很solid啊你看看差距都这么明显了都这么significant了一群二
: 货reviewers老说说我这个不确定那个不确定让补一大堆实验浪费我一年的时间你们这
: 些二货能不能深入理解一下我伟大的思想
: 另一方面这种文章一出来大家就说啊我老早就说了你看看科学家都是一群大忽悠的做的
: 实验算算屁value就发文章谁知道有多少是真的科学界被他们搞得乌烟瘴气
: 呵呵
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 5 我同意吐槽很多人统计学的知识，但是对很多人对人对己的态度表示呵呵
A
of
divorce
【在 T****i 的大作中提到】
: 我以前就说过，差距很小的statistical significance 很可能不是biological
: significance。下面这个例子说的很明白：
: Critics also bemoan the way that P values can encourage muddled thinking. A
: prime example is their tendency to deflect attention from the actual size of
: an effect. Last year, for example, a study of more than 19,000 people
: showed8 that those who meet their spouses online are less likely to divorce
: (p < 0.002) and more likely to have high marital satisfaction (p < 0.001)
: than those who meet offline (see Nature http://doi.org/rcg; 2013). That might have sounded impressive, but the effects were actually tiny: meeting online nudged the divorce rate from 7.67% down to 5.96%, and barely budged happiness from 5.48 to 5.64 on a 7-point scale. To pounce on tiny P values and ignore the larger question is to fall prey to the “seductive certainty of significance”, says Geoff Cumming, an emeritus psychologist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. But significance is no indicator of practical relevance, he says: “We should be asking, 'How much of an effect is there?', not 'Is there an effect?'”
: 很多时候，人们还用SEM代替SD来让差别看起来更大。
: 我认为差别不是很大但又statistical significant的结果，应该有其他实验支持，才
| i*********0
发帖数: 915 | | s*****j
发帖数: 6435 | 7 your boss does this?
"that many published psychology papers report P values that cluster
suspiciously around 0.05, just as would be expected if researchers fished
for significant P values until they found one."
【在 i*********0 的大作中提到】
: 我们老板就是喜欢那种屁value的人。
| c******o
发帖数: 1184 | 8 you can certainly get significant if you study a big n. | l****m
发帖数: 751 | 9 统计的作用实在太大了。
感觉统计的误用很多都是故意的。故意错用来支持自己的论点。 |
|
