Wired magazine had a short article last month on how to read a scientific report, which basically was about how to interpret the statistical results. It’s reasonably well done.
Tags: media, papers
This entry was posted on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:40 am and is filed under Statistics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
correlation is not causation but still more than coincidence, right?
Agreed. I also disliked that sentence, “Sometimes an outcome is just a coincidence—there’s a correlation but no causation.”
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).