Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97015)	4/30/2003 8:54:57 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> you could expect the same ratio of cancers (in the same time periods)<< You could, or you could flip a coin a few times to find out the problems with statistical analysis of small samples.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97015)	5/1/2003 3:09:55 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OT~~There are classes in "The Gentle Art of Conversation" as well... I'm sure he was way too polite to say what he was thinking with your comment....Yours is way, way too crude and simplistic an analysis. MERCY Megatroid....

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (97015)	5/1/2003 10:45:44 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 281500

O.T. I commented on the expected cancer rate in a random sample. A random sample does in fact enable inferences to be drawn about the population from which it is drawn subject to confidence limits based on sample size. The confounding variables you list are needed to draw inferences from non-random groups. In any case the sample of 220 was is too small for any conclusions. I don't care about the issue either. Although I didn't do it well, I was just trying to demonstrate that no valid conclusions could be drawn from the article you copied.