[[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

[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?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:43:23 PM UTC-5, Scott wrote:

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?

Neither is being precisely correct, but Howard at least got the conclusion =
right: His result did not achieve a 95% confidence level, and therefore he =
cannot reject the null hypothesis. John is, as they say, lying with statist=
ics by trying to reset the confidence level after the fact. Had John said t=
hat there was a 94.6% probability that Howard's result was not due to chanc=
e, he would have been correct. To use the term "confidence level" in this c=
ontext, and to further state that this "suggested" that Howard heard a diff=
erence, is an abuse of statistics. Your repeated claim that Howard got a po=
sitive result is similarly mistaken.

bob