If a specific pattern observed in an experiment emerges often from a re-randomization, this suggests that pure chance alone is often sufficient to produce the same pattern, thus invalidating the experiment.
Imagine reshuffling the pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica many times, to see how often they just happen to be found in the proper order.
It turns out I had it backwards because it wasn't at all clear to me what a re-randomization is! A re-randomization is all about mixing up at random the results of one and the same experiment. I couldn't make sense of how results that appeared to be not significant should, just the opposite, be considered significant. The conclusion that the experiment was significant seemed to me - and to others in the comments, I see - to contradict the point that had been made throughout the video.
It may be just me but, when I first watched this video, I was utterly confused and misled by it.
0 kommentar(er)
