|
|
|
| "be consistent" | |
| PerlMonks |
Re^9: Window size for shuffling DNA?by BrowserUk (Patriarch) |
| on May 21, 2015 at 16:59 UTC ( [id://1127366]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
|
As a biologist, I would argue against that claim. When you need to experimentally verify a set of predictions, I would take a method that yields ~ 10% FDR over another method that suffers from ~ 40%. That way time, energy and resources are better utilized. You're right. I'm not a biologist, but, please think again. For each of your 3 species, you have a single "actual discoveries" figure; but 7 different %FDRs. The original data, and discoveries don't change, so at best, only one of those 7 numbers could possibly be right; and which one could be different for each of the three species. Or they could all be wrong. Picking any of them because it is convenient is just wishful thinking. And basing your experimental strategy upon a guess -- it is nothing more -- because it will involve less work; completely subverts the scientific method. I'll shut up now. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
I'm with torvalds on this
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||