Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by nickpsecurity on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @11:36AM (#10627988)

That was as intuitive as the seemless connection between the Magic Bullet Theory and Ballistics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by jsprogrammer on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @11:47AM (#10628030)

It comes directly from the calculation of p-values through probability theory.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by omginternets on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @12:17PM (#10628232)

I'm reminded of a joke about how Haskell empowers you to apply the infinite power of abstract mathematics using the intuitive simplicity of abstract mathematics.

I think the resistance you're encountering stems from the fact that you're appealing to formality rather than intuition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by jsprogrammer on Sunday November 29, 2015 @04:36AM (#10644238)

Counting positive observations vs. total observations is a formality rather than intuition? The formality is the axioms of probability. The intuition is that you make a theory and measure how many predictions it gets right.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by omginternets on Monday November 30, 2015 @10:38AM (#10649890)

It's all relative, as they say.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by senekerim on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @01:25PM (#10628663)

Also from the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values by jsprogrammer on Sunday November 29, 2015 @05:08PM (#10646301)

You talking about me?

[ Parent | on HN ]