Interview with Dr. Henry Bauer - Part 1

OK. I had assumed that everyone who was interested had read more than enough about this already - and enough not to be misled by further nonsense from fls, but evidently not....

I'm glad you posted that, Chris. Sums things up nicely.

Not being a mathemtical whizz, I can't contribute much to the discussion, but check this out:



It's been "proven" that something like the Higgs boson exists because of high sigmas (5-6) despite the minuscule effect size, on account of the statistical power of gathering data from "gazillions" of particle interactions. It'd be interesting to see whether FLS would accept this (not that interesting, mind, because I have her on ignore -- she bores me to death with her constant nitpicking), or whether she reserves her "scepticism" only for psi phenomena.

Speaking personally, I regard statistics with grave doubt. If something is deemed to exist only because statistics says so, then in my mind there's always a degree of doubt whether it does or not. The arguments still rage about the Higgs boson, Nobel prizes notwithstanding.

As I said, why anyone should take fls seriously is beyond me.

If anyone is still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, they can ask her to link to the post - or they can try to find the post themselves - in which she "came right out and said that the power will influence the false positive rate, well before [Chris] mathematically demonstrated and confirmed that the power influences the false positive rate."

Because that is not just an error, but an outright lie.

As I said, why anyone should take fls seriously is beyond me.

If anyone is still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, they can ask her to link to the post - or they can try to find the post themselves - in which she "came right out and said that the power will influence the false positive rate, well before [Chris] mathematically demonstrated and confirmed that the power influences the false positive rate."

Because that is not just an error, but an outright lie.

I said that the power will give us the number of true positives here (post #22 in the thread):

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-90...ml#pid8515

The false positive discovery rate is the number of false positives divided by the total number of positives - true positives plus false positives. As the number of true positives decreases, the false positive discovery rate increases.

Linda

[Laird]

As I said, why anyone should take fls seriously is beyond me.

If anyone is still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, they can ask her to link to the post - or they can try to find the post themselves - in which she "came right out and said that the power will influence the false positive rate, well before [Chris] mathematically demonstrated and confirmed that the power influences the false positive rate."

Because that is not just an error, but an outright lie.

Agreed, and, you know what, I'm not even going to respond to her posts. We've both given her ample opportunity to do what she said she was willing to do - admit to her errors - and instead she denies making them, and accuses me of "insincerity". Sorry, Linda, but you just lost the last benefit I would otherwise (i.e. had you admitted to your errors) have afforded you of the doubt. You lied when you said you were willing to admit to your errors. It is you who is insincere.

I said that the power will give us the number of true positives here (post #22 in the thread):

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-90...ml#pid8515

As I said before, what you wrote in that post is no more than the definition of statistical power - it's the probability of getting a significant result, given that the hypothesis is true.

What you claimed today is that you "came right out and said that the power will influence the false positive rate". The false positive rate is the probability of getting a significant result, given that the hypothesis is false. You know perfectly well that is a different thing, and its relationship with the power is not trivial. That is why I posted the equations showing the relationship.

Your claim today was an outright lie.

fls

I would suggest you just stop now. I'm not going to respond to any of your posts on this subject. I feel that the way you're behaving almost amounts to a kind of self-harm.