October 31 2020 22:18:55
News Photos Forum Search Contact History Linkbox Calendar
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
Fantasy Premier League
Covers that Rock
Football's gnash of ...
Great live performances
Craziest music video!
Blast from the past
MMA Stuff
Is climate change re...
UFO incidents
Thomsen Climate Change
Newest Links
Retfærdighedens Ryt... (1)
Joe Rogan Experience... (1)
Why Stellarators mig... (0)
Earth almost destroy... (1)
Every breath you tak... (0)
KI 6-1 Dinamo Tbilis... (2)
Robert Kubica on the... (5)
Crazy boat terminal ... (0)
Pretty or ugly build... (0)
Random Photo


Member Poll
How do you like the new banner I made for Copenhell?

Wait, that was for Copenhell? I like it, let's keep it!

What's Copenhell? Let's go back to the old one!

Whatever, I want a completely new one!

You must login to vote.
SadEarth almost destroyed by Supernova 2.5 mio years ago?

Grizlas on October 06 2020 20:04:20
When I saw the graph with the huge error bars, I was skeptical. In the comments, it seems obvious to colleagues, that this is garbage. How the hell does this ever get through peer review?

This one guy has a great suggestion that should just be mandatory practice where in any way possible:

I think it harkens back to an era where academics (and, hence, peer reviewers) had substantial statistical education. Today, that's often not the case, and statistics, as a field, has developed significantly over the past decades. Unless a researcher has at least a minor in statistics, over and above the one or two statistical methods courses required of undergrads/grad students, they'd be better off anonymizing their data and handing it off to a third-party statistician to crunch the numbers. This would eliminate a TON of bias. However, that doesn't help peer reviewers that don't have a background in statistics to be able to determine what's "appropriate".

That said, studies that don't have statistically significant results are just as important to the library of human knowledge. However, the trend in academia is that such studies are "meaningless" and often don't get published because the results aren't "significant". This reveals a misunderstanding between "signficance" and "statistical significance" that REALLY needs to be sorted out, in my opinion.
Post Comment
Please Login to Post a Comment.


Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Last Seen Users
Torellion 1 day
Laluu 2 days
OKJones 2 days
Grizlas 2 days
Vuzman 3 days
fjallsbak 4 days
Boddin 2 weeks
Spiff 5 weeks
ebbi21 weeks
You must login to post a message.

31/10/2020 14:17
RIP Sean Connery

11/09/2020 19:44
Eri í FO frá 2020-09-12 til 2020-09-19

21/03/2020 11:37
And somewhere in the darkness The gambler he broke even And in his final words I found an ace that I could keep RIP Kenny Rogers

03/03/2020 03:58
Suðuroy tú mundi doyð!

22/11/2019 02:00
allir burdi fari hugt eftir gomlum myndum og uploada nøkur fleiri albums her inni <3 smiley (eg skal eisini fara at hyggja hvat man hevur) smiley

06/09/2019 21:20
I guess no one has died since then? ¯\_(?)_/¯

04/09/2019 12:59
Last login "RIP Rutger Hauer" and like that he was gone.

03/09/2019 17:18

03/09/2019 16:27
RIP Jogvanth or so it seems.

24/07/2019 21:12
RIP Rutger Hauer

Shoutbox Archive