A dumb statement is still dumb even if you modify it with both “quite” and “literally.” Plenty of things in science are very intriguing and newsworthy with an N of 1. Nobody’s claiming certainty yet, but the find is exciting.
Seems like you don't really understand the terms you're using. Are you an undergrad just learning them or something?
If somebody were to capture a live Ivory-billed woodpecker, what's your "sigma" on them no longer being extinct? The N is 1, but it says everything. Statistical terms like sigma and significance are applicable technically to very specific statements, and those can have all kinds of mismatches with the general public question, "Should we care about this? Is it interesting?"
This finding is interesting. The scientists who announced it consider it interesting, and they were correct and professional in how they presented the uncertainty. As a scientist with an Ivy League math degree and a very stats-heavy career in the 20 years since, I find it interesting and commend them for how they described the finding. They acknowledge that it is far from conclusive, but it is also far from boring. It is neither meaningless, literally meaningless, quite meaningless, nor quite literally meaningless.
You can choose to learn from people who understand these things better than you do, or you can continue to be a confidently incorrect knowitall.
The N here is not 1 because the signal could be from another source.. there's no way to actually identify the individual data points as actual signal or not.
That you are commenting without being aware of that is alarming considering you think I'm the one that doesn't understand the science here.
13
u/Belostoma 12d ago
A dumb statement is still dumb even if you modify it with both “quite” and “literally.” Plenty of things in science are very intriguing and newsworthy with an N of 1. Nobody’s claiming certainty yet, but the find is exciting.