Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- From: Oliver Costich <ocostich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:58:37 -0500
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:36:18 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote:
Back to reality: 61% correct in one experiment fails to reject that
they can't tell the difference.
61% is statistically close enough as doesn't matter to pure 50-50% random choice.
Try flicking coins and see if you get a perfect 50-50 distribution for any given
sample size. You WON'T. In fact pure 50-50 would be the exception by a mile.
No, 61% is as good as proof that there's NO difference. Which there ISN'T of
course. Copper is copper is copper. High pricing, alleged magic and phoney
marketing doesn't make if any different.
Graham
You have to be more specific. 61% may or may not be significant
depending on the sample size and significance level desired. It's also
possible that the hyptohesis based on the claim can be rejected when
it's true and you can fail to reject it when it's false. That's the
nature of statiscal analysis.
Based on the data given, even accepting the design of the experiment
(a different issue), at the 95$ significance level, you can't support
the claim. That does not mean it is false. it justs means there's not
enough evidence.
Sometimes guilty people get acquitted.
.
- References:
- Blind Cable Test at CES
- From: John Atkinson
- Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- From: Oliver Costich
- Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- From: Eeyore
- Blind Cable Test at CES
- Prev by Date: Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- Next by Date: Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- Previous by thread: Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- Next by thread: Re: Blind Cable Test at CES
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
