90% of German psychology researchers couldn't get these

>psychology
>science
nice bait

>>8263264
They're all false.

>>8263264
1false
2true
3false
4depends on research design: if experiemtn was fawless, it is a true statement
5false, but the phrasing is seriously confusing
6false
>>8263288
Why do you think that? Am I missing some violation of the assumptions or what?

>>8263410
>Why do you think that?

P-values tell you the probability of getting the available data, given that the null hypothesis is true, is less than 0.01. Notice that nothing is said about your hypothesis under test being correct, and even assumes the null to be true. So that rules out the first 5, which all make statements about the probability of either the hypothesis or the null being either true or false. So that only leaves the last one which clearly is unrelated to the definition of the pvalue. So they're all false.

Isn't 5 the only true one?

>>8263264
This is all stupid.

Especially number 6. Just the mere notion.
Dumb.

>>8263512
Nope, all false.

>>8263522
100% of tested psychology students get it wrong, perhaps more alarmingly 80% of methodology instructors get it wrong.

>>8263533
Having faith, as in number 6, is stupid.
Stupid.
Dumb.
Inane.
Degenerate.
Myopic.
Trash.
Utterly unacceptably disgusting.

>>8263434
5 refers to wether your decision to reject the null was the right one or not, it doesn't mention true/false. It sounds like it's saying "I'm 99% sure that I can reject the null" or am I wrong?

>>8263550
Yes you're wrong. It's still referring to the probability of "being correct in rejecting the null", which means its providing some inference on the "correctness" of the null, that's not what a P-value does.

>>8263556
Ohhhhh. I get it now.

So am I correct in the following interpretation of confidence intervals?
My example is the measurement of the mass of some particle. All masses from 0 to infinity are regarded as equally likely. If we sampled a random one of these masses (in some sort of alternate universe, if you will), measured it, and the measurement returned the exact result we got, there is an x% chance the sampled mass was in our x% confidence interval.
Some of that feels mathematically questionable, but I'm not sure that matters.