"Asking 'what if there's no difference' and 'what if tri-14s are at least five times more likely to guess than tri-10s' are both questions that are semantically well-formed - it's easy to visualize ways reality can be that makes those propositions true or false - but they're both questions that are hard to answer directly using the statistics that 'published-experimental-reports' are supposed to calculate."

"To be clear, you could see a report saying that they tested 1000 subjects of each type, and 103 tri-10s and 622 tri-14s guessed in time, and you could look at that report and say, 'Yep, sure looks to me like tri-14s are at least five times as likely to guess in time.'  But in stating that, you'd be arriving at a 'posterior', not stating the kind of evidence that a 'published-experimental-report' summarizes.  You'd be doing something that intrinsically revolves around 'priors' and not just 'likelihoods'."

"Do any of the candidates want to take a stab at saying why Carissa's direct question is something that's ill-formed for an experimental summary to directly summarize an update about?"

"Asking 'what if there's no difference' and 'what if tri-14s are at least five times more likely to guess than tri-10s' are both questions that are semantically well-formed - it's easy to visualize ways reality can be that makes those propositions true or false - but they're both questions that are hard to answer directly using the statistics that 'published-experimental-reports' are supposed to calculate."

"To be clear, you could see a report saying that they tested 1000 subjects of each type, and 103 tri-10s and 622 tri-14s guessed in time.  You could look at that report and say, 'Yep, sure looks to me like tri-14s are at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in time.'  But in stating that, you'd be arriving at a 'posterior', not stating the kind of evidence that a 'published-experimental-report' summarizes.  You'd be doing something that intrinsically revolves around 'priors' and not just 'likelihoods'."

"Do any of the candidates want to take a stab at saying why Carissa's question of ultimate interest to her Civilization - 'Are tri-14s at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in thirty minutes?' - is something that's ill-formed for an experimental summary to directly summarize an 'evidential-update' about?"

"Asking 'what if there's no difference' and 'what if tri-14s are at least five times more likely to guess than tri-10s' are both questions that are semantically well-formed - it's easy to visualize ways reality can be that makes those propositions true or false - but they're both questions that are hard to answer directly using the statistics that 'published-experimental-reports' are supposed to calculate."

"To be clear, you could see a report saying that they tested 1000 subjects of each type, and 103 tri-10s and 622 tri-14s guessed in time.  You could look at that report and say, 'Yep, sure looks to me like tri-14s are at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in time.'  But in stating that, you'd be arriving at a 'posterior', not stating the kind of evidence that a 'published-experimental-report' summarizes.  You'd be doing something that intrinsically revolves around 'priors' and not just 'likelihoods'."

"Do any of the candidates want to take a stab at saying why Carissa's question of ultimate interest to her Civilization - 'Are tri-14s at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in thirty minutes?' - is something that's ill-formed for an experimental summary to directly summarize an 'evidential-update' about?  Why it can't just report on that the way it could report on a preregistered hypothesis that tri-10s were 40% likely to guess, and tri-14s 60% likely?"

"Asking 'what if there's no difference' and 'what if tri-14s are at least five times more likely to guess than tri-10s' are both questions that are semantically well-formed - it's easy to visualize ways reality can be that makes those propositions true or false - but the second question is hard to answer directly using the statistics that 'published-experimental-reports' are supposed to calculate."

"To be clear, you could see a report saying that they tested 1000 subjects of each type, and 103 tri-10s and 622 tri-14s guessed in time.  You could look at that report and say, 'Yep, sure looks to me like tri-14s are at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in time.'  But in stating that, you'd be arriving at a 'posterior', not stating the kind of evidence that a 'published-experimental-report' summarizes.  You'd be doing something that intrinsically revolves around 'priors' and not just 'likelihoods'."

"Do any of the candidates want to take a stab at saying why Carissa's question of ultimate interest to her Civilization - 'Are tri-14s at least five times as likely as tri-10s to guess in thirty minutes?' - is something that's ill-formed for an experimental summary to directly summarize an 'evidential-update' about?  Why it can't just report on that the way it could report on a preregistered hypothesis that tri-10s were 40% likely to guess, and tri-14s 60% likely?"