[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 20, 7:53=A0am, wrote:
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 lo=
oks like there may have been significant audible differences with the 17 ou=
t of 25 mindnumbing trials I did, that score does achieve a 95% confidence =
level, indicating that the the choices were still attributable to chance."

You quote John Atkinson saying, "In other words, your own tests sugge=
sted you heard a difference..."

Howard is correctly interpreting the statistics here. John is not. A =
confidence interval is a hard target, not a rough idea you only have to get=
close to.
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 n=
ot 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?

He did not get a positive result. If you refuse to accept that, there is =
nothing more to say.

bob

This is a really old and tired debate. But I just want to clarify your
position on one thing before *I* close the books on this one. So it is
your position that Howard Ferstler is right when he says that his
results show a *95% confidence level that the results were due to
chance* and John Atkinson is wrong when he says the results show the
opposite, that they show a *95%, or more precisely a 94.6% confidence
level that the results were not due to chance?* Because *that is what
they actually claimed.* Just for the record are you really saying
Howard got that right and John got that wrong?