NEJM adjusts some rules for how p-values are reported:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1906559?query=TOC …
Show this thread
-
Am I misreading this somehow? They then turn around and get it right.pic.twitter.com/cZrI08CHTG
Show this thread
You are. p<.05 is the probability of data given null hypothesis, not probability of null hypothesis given data (inverse conditional probability fallacy).
-
-
I know that. Doesn't the highlighted part here contradict that though?https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/1151646638961827847 …
-
Null hypothesis is almost always false, so these calculations are pointless strictly speaking.
-
I think I figured out the problem. When they say "Concluding that the null hypothesis is false when in fact it is true...has a likelihood of less than 5%" means "if you do this when the null is true you'll reject 5% of the time," not the more natural reading, in which it sounds..
-
... like "of the times you conclude it's false it will actually be true 5% of the time," the "percent chance of being wrong" misunderstanding.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.