dgruss:
Quote:
|
That's a good example of where it would be more productive to run the stats themselves rather than just dismiss it all as a posteriori
|
I don't quite understand - doesn't Hawkins do exactly what you are asking for? He repeats the previous analysis using the same data but more rigorous statistics and finds that its about a 1sigma effect, if that, rather than the claimed 10sigma effect.
Thats not arguing a posteriori - thats correcting an error.