Comment on Casually dropped this tidbit
anzo@programming.dev 2 months ago
Just read the article. 64% is awfully near to 50%. Specially if the number of trials was low.
Comment on Casually dropped this tidbit
anzo@programming.dev 2 months ago
Just read the article. 64% is awfully near to 50%. Specially if the number of trials was low.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Its a 28% increase. To me, thats colloquially significant.
anzo@programming.dev 2 months ago
Now, I went to the research article. The number of trials (n) was 10. To me, this is not strong evidence. If an independent group would take upon this work and find similar results, I would very much be inclined to change my mind.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 2 months ago
10 trials is lot of replication and more than reliable enough. Honestly, I’m quite taken aback that you think 10 repetitions of the same result isn’t strong evidence.
anzo@programming.dev 2 months ago
If bees had 2 options, by random chance they would go to any of them (i.e. no learning or concept of zero). That’s 50%. The article is based on 10 bees, and only 6.4? chose the correct answer. Ok, I am definitely not understanding this. I would need to re-read it…