Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ...
by klodolph on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @04:47PM
(#11624101)
This has always been the case. The standard for scientific proof in the natural sciences is often quite high, and the legal standard for tort claims is usually "preponderance of evidence", which you could think of as a P-value of 0.50. The lowest P-value acceptable in most scientific fields is 0.10, more common you would use 0.05, and particle physicists would use 0.0000003 (for announcing the discovery of a new particle).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ...
by plainOldText on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @05:01AM
(#11627115)
"Scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold.
P-values can indicate how incompatible the data are with a specified statistical model.
P-values do not measure the prob. that the studied hypothesis is true, or the prob. that the data were produced by random chance alone."
Source: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016....
Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ...
by throwaway_xx9 on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @09:48PM
(#11625606)
p-values are B.S. unless used by a statistician.
Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ...
by PakG1 on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @03:44AM
(#11626835)
p-values are especially dangerous if used by a statistician. They'll know best how to manipulate the charts and data to look good and fool laypeople. Motive and intent are the most important issues.
Re:Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer ...
by dietrichepp on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @03:06AM
(#11626709)
This statement is obvious nonsense. You might as well say that chemical names are B.S. unless used by a chemist.