Talk:Insignificance
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Science related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Not even wrong[edit]
Much of the stats section is not even wrong, but I'm not quite sure what to do with this article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the bones of something really good is there, just tweaking is needed. I'm of course happy with the opening lede stating that "the quality or condition of being insignificant" is unhelpful. So much of the dictionary is like that...
pathetic 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Though I feel we need to draft this all into an article on "significance" as separate to statistical significance for it to work properly. postate 16:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Clean-up at will. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tyranny of small decisions comes to mind. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone needs to clarify why this is "on mission". I think when someone makes that statement, it will help frame what we do and don't want to say. As AKD said, "there's something really good here" but right now it's hard to tell what. As stupid as this may or may not sound, one of the best tools in any writer's arsenal is to ask himself "so what?" "what is the reason I'm writing this". (and no, i'm not saying it's off mission - i'm just asking why it *is* mission).
Godot I hate sluts 19:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- One way you can really make the science part relevant, is talk about how the Creationists tend to discount findings in labs (like Linsky) or --crap, what's his name, the Oxford scientist who has figured out how to make 2 of the 4 amino acids from natural conditions... john southerland, maybe -- as being "insignificant evidence". Same with Global Warming. Though you also need to address teh difference between insignificance and irrelevance. Science will often say this finding or that finding is irrelevant to the question at hand, and Creationsits or Global warning deniers fling about saying "no no, it's important". Godot I hate sluts 19:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- One way you can really make the science part relevant, is talk about how the Creationists tend to discount findings in labs (like Linsky) or --crap, what's his name, the Oxford scientist who has figured out how to make 2 of the 4 amino acids from natural conditions... john southerland, maybe -- as being "insignificant evidence". Same with Global Warming. Though you also need to address teh difference between insignificance and irrelevance. Science will often say this finding or that finding is irrelevant to the question at hand, and Creationsits or Global warning deniers fling about saying "no no, it's important".
- Someone needs to clarify why this is "on mission". I think when someone makes that statement, it will help frame what we do and don't want to say. As AKD said, "there's something really good here" but right now it's hard to tell what. As stupid as this may or may not sound, one of the best tools in any writer's arsenal is to ask himself "so what?" "what is the reason I'm writing this". (and no, i'm not saying it's off mission - i'm just asking why it *is* mission).
- Tyranny of small decisions comes to mind. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Clean-up at will. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Though I feel we need to draft this all into an article on "significance" as separate to statistical significance for it to work properly.
