What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were the result of error. It is exceedingly small. Far below the mathematical definition of impossible, which is 10^-50.
That is what Joshua Cude thinks is the case. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread. If >>> one considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess >>> heat event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications >>> are on record. >>> >> >> That is a form of Bayesian analysis, I think. >> >> > No it's not. It's just ordinary probability theory, and it's not even > right. That calculation gives the probability of getting N *consecutive* > replications. The probability of rolling 6 on an ordinary die is 1/6, but > it's easy to get N sixes (on average) just by throwing the die 6N times. > > It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis that > emphasizes the absence of a single experiment that will give an expected > result. > > > > > > > >
