459

Casually dropped this tidbit (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You can read about how researchers discovered that here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] anzo@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago

Just read the article. 64% is awfully near to 50%. Specially if the number of trials was low.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Its a 28% increase. To me, thats colloquially significant.

[-] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

Now, I went to the research article. The number of trials (n) was 10. To me, this is not strong evidence. If an independent group would take upon this work and find similar results, I would very much be inclined to change my mind.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

10 trials is lot of replication and more than reliable enough. Thats improbable, even for a 50:50. Honestly, I'm quite taken aback that you think 10 repetitions of the same result isn't strong evidence and it screams that no one would ever be deemed independent enough, unless they found the results you wanted.

[-] anzo@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago

If bees had 2 options, by random chance they would go to any of them (i.e. no learning or concept of zero). That's 50%. The article is based on 10 bees, and only 6.4? chose the correct answer. Ok, I am definitely not understanding this. I would need to re-read it...