Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zako" data-source="post: 7618254" data-attributes="member: 629735">First look up what the concept of statistical significance means. Having not read the paper, I do not even argue here that the paper is wrong in any way. I do not question their results, although seeing that it&#039;s only an unpublished paper, only the test of time and peer review will tell whether their results are even correct. I am just pointing out that the results do not say anything conclusive. And this is given that they use 90% confidence interval.&nbsp; Look at the abstract. Like I pointed out, their findings don&#039;t seem to prove anything. Had they used 95% or 99% confidence level, their confidence interval would been even bigger.I am sorry man, but if you have read through &quot;the gobbledygook&quot; and you&#039;re still convinced that it constitutes a proof that the stimulus didn&#039;t work, clearly there is no point to argue with you. You post links that clearly do not &#039;prove&#039; anything, then proceed to use that as a basis to accuse others of liberal bias, lying, etc. If you want to believe what you believe, then keep doing so. I don&#039;t want to waste my braincells to continue to argue with the equivalent of stone rock.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zako, post: 7618254, member: 629735"] First look up what the concept of statistical significance means. Having not read the paper, I do not even argue here that the paper is wrong in any way. I do not question their results, although seeing that it's only an unpublished paper, only the test of time and peer review will tell whether their results are even correct. I am just pointing out that the results do not say anything conclusive. And this is given that they use 90% confidence interval. Look at the abstract. Like I pointed out, their findings don't seem to prove anything. Had they used 95% or 99% confidence level, their confidence interval would been even bigger. I am sorry man, but if you have read through "the gobbledygook" and you're still convinced that it constitutes a proof that the stimulus didn't work, clearly there is no point to argue with you. You post links that clearly do not 'prove' anything, then proceed to use that as a basis to accuse others of liberal bias, lying, etc. If you want to believe what you believe, then keep doing so. I don't want to waste my braincells to continue to argue with the equivalent of stone rock. [/QUOTE]

Verification