Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Doctor_YOOOU t1_jdw37v7 wrote

>Samples were often described as too small or inadequately created.

This is really interesting to me, and is definitely a communication challenge. There are a lot of reasons why people might perceive a sample as too small - maybe it is! There are a lot of logistical, funding, or statistics reasons why a sample might be the size it is. However, I am not sure those reasons are often communicated for fear of sabotaging one's own conclusions. Without explaining why a sample is the way that it is, it remains open to interpretation and easy criticism.


1purenoiz t1_jdwiw0c wrote

If somebody can't explain statistical power, you can ignore their critique that the sample size is too small. People also do not know the difference between statistically significant and clinically significant.


Doctor_YOOOU t1_jdwjtjk wrote

Absolutely, statistical knowledge is definitely an issue. Maybe the challenge is partially educating about statistics so the public has more tools to understand and interpret science


YouAreGenuinelyDumb t1_je1ddn7 wrote

Oh man, statistical significance is a hard one to explain to people. I almost feel it should be re-termed.


1purenoiz t1_je1poee wrote

Lots of terms in statistics could and should be renamed, according to my linear regression analysis professor who has a statistical distance named after him. Likelihood of effect by chance is close, but wordy.