[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

This is indeed misleading. It has no numerical figures, and it wastes loads of ink and screen space. The other one is better structured as a chart. I a sorry you spent your time to demonstrate something we all know, but may be Excel has good reasons that cuts off the axis at 6.

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ah the statistical significance, which as everybody knows is assessed ...visually? Mic drop

BTW I have another comment here, totally irrelevant to this discussion, that I bring up statistical siGnifiCAnsE as an example of confident falsehood. Thanks for proving me right lol

Edit: here it is for context ( from https://lemmy.ml/post/17638298/12096466 )

Layman statistics is not the hill I would die on. Otherwise (being guilty of the fallacy myself) I now think that making a subject mandatory school lesson will only make people more confidently incorrect about it, so this is another hill I won’t die on for probability and statistics. See for instance the widespread erroneous layman use of “statistical significance” (like “your sample of partners is not statistical significant”) you see it is a lost cause. They misinterpret it because they were taught it. Also professionals have been taught it and mess it up more than regularly to the point we can’t trust studies or sth any more. So the solution you suggest is teach more of it? Sounds a bit like the war on drugs.

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago

Excuse me, are you whining about Marxism not making the first square together with physics? That would be a rather peculiar statement, but you present it as if it were self evident. Just in case you are shallowly serious I may respond that physics does not acknowledge social reality and admittedly it can hardly account for organic life. Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality. The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

[-] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

See my other comment, Wikipedia says the axes are as I said.

Edit: And illustrating time as the vertical axis, it is wildly uncommon. So this 'framing' rebuttal is like ..hysterical.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

whydudothatdrcrane

joined 3 months ago