Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I can squint my eyes, and posit a Type III error that meets
>that definition. But it's virtually never going to happen, or be
>regarded as an event-of-that-class when it does; so it is not "on a
>par with" the other two. In my opinion.
It seems to me the concept of "Type III error" discussed implicitly
rests on the notion that rejecting the null implies accepting the
alternative. Since both the null and alternative are generally false,
I don't see how we can square the concept itself with the underpinnings
of frequentist inference.
--
Chris Auld (403)220-4098
Economics, University of Calgary <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Calgary, Alberta, Canada <URL:http://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca/>
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
