>>11411990For example, if you want to prove the existence of a thing, a sample size of 1 is sufficient. Now, to prove the thing is useful for some reason, you do need more samples. Though similarly, few samples may be sufficient to prove that a theory does not apply within its assumed constraints (then you could have also constructed an artificial example, but you use the samples to demonstrate that the construction also holds in real life).
That said,
>>11411849This.
>>11411999Now you're thinking like a statistishit.
>>11408744This but not really. Bioinformaticians at least kindof know their shit in most cases, but they're struggling hard because of the shit data generated by
>>11408740Think few samples is an issue? Now you get few samples and half the data in each sample is randomly corrupted. Is it time series data? The time points are sampled at basically random distances plus some random time lag (which isn't recorded), and for all you know the mechanism you care about has happened (or has predictive signal) only between the points that are sampled.
