Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you replicated the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall very close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical significance.
So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small samples. It all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at >> all for the crap you've been talking. >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: >> > >> > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat >> > you with experience >> > >> > . >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people >> > >> and 28 people. >> > >> >> > > >> > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd >> call >> > it >> > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same >> hypothesis. >> > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug are a >> > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's methodology. >> > And, >> > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them may >> > have >> > > said in an interview... >> > > >> > > >> > >> PURE BS! >> > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they >> > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. >> > >> >> > > >> > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have said >> > if >> > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but let's >> > cut >> > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I >> > suppose >> > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or you) >> > > seriously at this point. >> > > >> > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the >> > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. >> > > >> > > >> > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's completely >> > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is wrong >> > > with the science? >> > > >> > > >> > >> No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that >> > > >> > > some people took seriously. >> > > >> > > >> > > different set of events. >> > > >> > > >> > >> Again if it was tied to anything right >> > >> leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science >> > >> can never be wrong. >> > >> >> > > >> > > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is >> > > something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral >> > indignation >> > > at something said by someone that did not even participate-- >> > > then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a hypothesis >> > and a >> > > clinical study for fuck's sake >> > > >> > > >> > >> I decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who >> > >> DON'T AGREE WITH ME. >> > >> >> > > >> > > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of the >> > > selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're offended. >> > I'm >> > > sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to say" >> > mean >> > > "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. >> > > >> > > >> > >> That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you >> > >> not pay attention? >> > >> >> > > >> > > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... doing >> > > whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch likArchive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346951 > Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm > -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346959 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
