[fjkdlsjflkds]

> Not knowing what the "uncertainty interval" represents (is it, loosely speaking, an expectation about a mean/true value or about the distribution of unobserved values?) could be even more dangerous, in theory, than using no uncertainty interval at all.

And, from what I understand, this is what is happening in this article.

The person is providing an uncertainty interval for their mean estimator and not for future observations (i.e., the error bars reflect the uncertainty of the mean estimator, not the uncertainty over observations).

Like you said: before adding error bars, it probably makes sense to think a bit about what type of uncertainty those error bars are supposed to represent.

[bo1024]

Thanks, this finally clarifies for me what the article was actually doing!

And it's very different from what I expected, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I guess if statisticians already believe your model, then they want to see the error bars on the model. But I would expect if someone gives me a forecast with "error bars", those would relate to how accurate they think the forecast would be.