Talk:Statistical significance

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



Can I do I rewrite of this sometime in the next few weeks focusing on statistical significance? \approx\pi 10:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

You can rewrite anything you like, but just curious what this article is "about" if not statistical significance? tmtoulouse persecute 16:01, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Jargonic solution[edit]

Weaseloid de-bronzed this. I've got no problem with that. However, I think some jargon is necessary. As a statistician, I'm probably biased. Is it better if the jargon-laden parts are segregated into a "technical details" kind of section or just annihilated altogether. I can do the former, but not the latter (it doesn't look very jargon-laden to me). MarmotHead (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to talk about science[edit]

But before we do, we need to watch YouTube videos about science. Cause that's what smart people do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)