<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Origin of &#8220;statistically significant&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/17/origin-of-statistically-significant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/17/origin-of-statistically-significant/</link>
	<description>The blog of John D. Cook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:45:27 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/17/origin-of-statistically-significant/comment-page-1/#comment-9865</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=812#comment-9865</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve heard the same thing about relativity and GPS. On the other hand, I&#039;ve heard that the constant in Newton&#039;s law of gravity is only known to 4 significant figures.  Apparently you don&#039;t need to know the equations of motion to extraordinary precision to send a probe to the outer planets. There must be a large amount of in-flight correction, Kalman filters and all that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve heard the same thing about relativity and GPS. On the other hand, I&#8217;ve heard that the constant in Newton&#8217;s law of gravity is only known to 4 significant figures.  Apparently you don&#8217;t need to know the equations of motion to extraordinary precision to send a probe to the outer planets. There must be a large amount of in-flight correction, Kalman filters and all that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Venier</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/11/17/origin-of-statistically-significant/comment-page-1/#comment-9862</link>
		<dc:creator>John Venier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=812#comment-9862</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve heard that GPS needs to take relativity into account to get the right answer; if so relativistic effects are meaningful quite close to home!  Okay, okay, make that &quot;macro-scale&quot;.

I&#039;ve had the &quot;statistically significant but clinically insignificant&quot; conversation with non-statisticians many times over the years.  It is one of the most important (IMO) lessons one could hope to retain from an introductory course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve heard that GPS needs to take relativity into account to get the right answer; if so relativistic effects are meaningful quite close to home!  Okay, okay, make that &#8220;macro-scale&#8221;.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had the &#8220;statistically significant but clinically insignificant&#8221; conversation with non-statisticians many times over the years.  It is one of the most important (IMO) lessons one could hope to retain from an introductory course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.310 seconds -->
