[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:25:00 PM UTC-5, Scott wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:41=A0am, wrote:

You quote Howard Ferstler saying, "Even though a 68% correct score look=
s like there may have been significant audible differences with the 17 out =
of 25 mindnumbing trials I did, that score does achieve a 95% confidence le=
vel, indicating that the the choices were still attributable to chance."
=20
You quote John Atkinson saying, "In other words, your own tests suggest=
ed you heard a difference..."
=20
Howard is correctly interpreting the statistics here. John is not. A co=
nfidence interval is a hard target, not a rough idea you only have to get c=
lose to.
=20
Um no, Howard interpreted the data backwards. he took 95% confidence
level to mean that it was a 95% likelihood that his results were due
to chance. The opposite is true. Atkinson was right. Ferstler was
wrong.

There is no point in carrying on a discussion about statistics who does not=
understand the most basic principles of statistics.

snip

Seriously? You think an ABX machine that is giving a positive result
when you hit the same selection over and over again is not
malfunctioning?=20

He did not get a positive result. If you refuse to accept that, there is no=
thing more to say.

bob