July 06 2025 01:11:20
News Photos Forum Search Contact History Linkbox Calendar
 
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
AI discussion
new tab page
Great live performances
Good music that peop...
Starship orbital lau...
Covers that Rock
The MAGA chronicles
Stand up comedy
It's a trap!
The Tech billionaire...
Linkbox
Newest Links
Some Football stats (1)
Jimmy Carr - Who Wan... (0)
Handheld laser weldi... (0)
Skal dine billeder b... (3)
How Voyager I got fixed (0)
My dinner with Adolf (1)
Eivør analysed by W... (0)
SNL Weekend Update: ... (0)
Deadline: Forsvarsmi... (0)
Jon Stewart on Trump... (0)
Random Photo
vegas041.jpg
vegas041.jpg
Stateside05 by Norlander

Member Poll
Should I watch "The Rings of Power"?

Yes

No

LOL

You must login to vote.
Link
 CategoryLink
Rating
SadEarth almost destroyed by Supernova 2.5 mio years ago?
2

Comments
Grizlas on October 06 2020 18:04:20
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.
Login
Username

Password



Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Last Seen Users
Norlander01:27:07
Grizlas12:13:21
Spiff 1 day
Torellion 1 day
OKJones 1 day
Boddin 1 day
Vuzman 1 day
Vester 3 days
fjallsbak 2 weeks
Jogvanth 3 weeks
Obituaries
You must login to post a message.

Grizlas
04/07/2025 09:01
RIP Mr. Blonde

Grizlas
03/07/2025 14:36
Could it be they lack those things because you know they are AI generated? smiley

Vuzman
03/07/2025 11:44
They all look... off. Incongruous, lacking personality and identity... Know what I mean?

Norlander
02/07/2025 22:27
WooHoo a new news item!

Grizlas
02/07/2025 20:29
None of them huh, Vuz? smiley

Grizlas
10/05/2025 11:14
changed thread_views from smallint to int. so now some threads which were stuck at 65535 views should work again smiley

Grizlas
01/01/2025 00:37
Takk, somuleiðis!

Norlander
31/12/2024 23:30
Gott nýggjár!

Grizlas
06/11/2024 20:17
Finally.

Norlander
05/11/2024 13:14
tta finally works again