I've just joined the list and I _think_ from looking at the list
welcome message and a quick search through the archives, that this is
on topic.
I want to say something at a conference about the way "facts" or
methodologies can get overvalued or used without thought,
particularly the way that people who are not statisticians or experts
in statistics can use statistical results or methods like this. I'm
drawing on two stories and realise that I'm hazy on both.
One is the story that spinach got a misplaced decimal point for iron
content in early tables of mineral content (either one place out or
two, I've found many comments saying the first, and one saying the
second but that latter has a ring of verisimilitude about it). What
I can't find is a good article about this in any peer-reviewed
literature. Does any have a reference?
The other is more on topic for this list and concerns the origin of
the .05 criterion. I've seen various stories about this in various
reputable places but they're all now a hazy mythology in my mind
involving different yeasts and an Irish brewery (Guinness?) That
suddenly feels like another myth and one that maybe I'm peddling.
Looking at the textbooks I have isn't helping and again, searching
google, various list archives, and pubmed, isn't doing it either.
Can anyone point me to a good reference or quote a good paragraph to
help me?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
--
Chris Evans <[log in to unmask]>
Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy, Rampton Hospital;
Forensic Research Programme Director, Nottinghamshire NHS Trust,
Research Consultant, Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust;
Hon. SL Institute of Psychiatry
*** My views are my own and not representative
of those institutions ***
|