So it’s official, turning off parts of your brain can make you a dumb lefty.
By shutting down the threat-processing centre of the brain, scientists weakened people's faith in God and made them less prejudiced
www.independent.co.uk
Causing brain damage can make you lose faith in God, and change their ideas about immigration. Specifically when the “threat processing” center is damaged/disabled.
Well there we have it, this is a great scientific reason we have brain dead functional morons that support open borders and have zero belief in God.
.
View attachment 852766
Of course it says no such thing...
This was one of Statistican William Briggs' examples of how p-value is logically unable to provde any assurance of truth
===============
Repeated in introductory texts, and began by Fisher himself, are words very like these (these were adapted from Fisher, R. 1970.
Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, fourteenth edition):
Belief in a null hypothesis as an accurate representation of the population sampled is confronted by a logical disjunction: Either the null hypothesis is false, or the p-value has attained by chance an exceptionally low value.
Fisher’s choice of words was poor. This is evidently not a logical disjunction, but can be made into one with slight surgery:
Either the null hypothesis is false and we see a small p-value, or the null hypothesis is true and we see a small p-value.
Stated another way, “Either the null hypothesis is true or it is false, and we see a small p-value.” Of course, the first clause of this proposition, “Either the null hypothesis is true or it is false”, is a tautology, a necessary truth, which transforms the proposition to “TRUE and we see a small p-value.” Or, in the end, Fisher’s dictum boils down to:
In other words, a small p-value has no bearing on any hypothesis (unrelated to the p-value itself, of course). Making a decision
because the p-value takes any particular value is thus always fallacious. The decision may be
serendipitously correct, as indeed any decision based on any criterion
might be, and as it often likely correct because experimenters are good at controlling their experiments, but it is still reached by a fallacy.
Update 8 January 2019. This post has been superseded! There is an official paper of this material, greatly expanded and vetted. SEE THIS NEW POST. THE NEW PAPER: Here is a link to the PDF. Briggs, …
www.wmbriggs.com