On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 05:02:40 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Jim West" wrote in message
. net...

Irrelevant. You can't arbitrarily play with the numbers.

I'm not playing with numbers. When you establish a significance level you
are establishing a certainly level that the community considers accepatble
odds. 95% confidence level reflects one-in-twenty odds. A 98% confidence
level reflects a one-in-fifty odds. 94.1% reflects a one-in-eighteen and a
half odds. Which seems qualitatively closer to one-in-twenty to you.

With a large sample size, stating the number needed for significance is
okay..exceeding it by one doesn't distort results. But with small sample
sizes such as we are talking about here, there is a big statistical
difference beween 11 of 15 and 12 of 15. And the eleven of fifteen best
approaches the 95% standard.

Fine. Now take the fact that there were a dozen volunteers, and you
find that you have a 12 out of 18.5 chance of achieving that result by
random chance. That's not much more than even odds. Now tell me that
this has any significance whatever.

The issue with the individuals still stands, however.

No it doesn't. Even with cherry picking (which is not valid anyway)
no individual performed at a statistically signficant level. Period.

Again, repeat the dogma (and the mantra). Don't bother to think about what
the numbers really translate to. I don't know of any social researcher
requiring odds of 98% or 99% confidence level. Do you really believe 95% is
"significant" while 94.2% is not, in any meaningful, non-dogmatic way?

More importantly, since there were 12 test subjects, the *real*
statistical probability of one subject scoring 11 out of 15 is not
94.2%, but 65%. That is simply not significant by *any* standard,
especially when combined with the fact that those test subjects who
did well on cables did poorly on amps, and vice versa. It's all just
random chance, and all the cherry picking in the world won't change
that.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering