News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by jessriedel on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:02PM (#3288986)
To elaborate on what other have said: it's not meant to be taken literally. There will of course be cases (e.g. the LHC) where it's imperative to do precise statistics because it's so expensive to make a measurement and only a few measurements can be reasonably made. But the idea of the quote is that often a researcher is going to be wasting his time if the effect he is looking at is so small as to require heavy duty statistics; the fancy statistical machinery can be a time-sink and distraction from the fact that the underlying effect isn't that interesting.
Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by mangodrunk on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @12:12AM (#3289175)
How would you know anything about your data without doing some statistical analysis. I'm not sure if you're saying some statistics are gathered or that any statistics are hard.
Re:50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistica... by jessriedel on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @04:07AM (#3289673)
The distinction is between trivial and non-trivial statistics. If I test a drug which cures 90 patients out of 100, vs. a placebo that cures none, I don't need to quote a p-value. The drug works.