On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:57:14 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jim's statement is not a "view"; it is 100% correct: there *is* a
>literature, and that does not depend at all on "your psychological ...
>background." What makes your part "damnable" is that Jim wrote
>neatly and intelligibly, whereas your note has parts that are dubious
>and other parts that I can't even parse.
The problem is not the existence of literature, the problem is the
content.
However, instead of names calling, you may want to offer one or other
publication in the context of comparisons between clinical judgment
and actuarial predictions, whcih
(1) is published in an indexed journal;
(2) has a correct translation between scientific hypothesis and
actually tested statistical hypothesis;
(3) shows the correct statistical test, here: regression equations
(because of the original posting), and correct interpretation of the
results -- besides alpha, power, N, effect size or risk; if there are
covariates, of course, the text shows that the covariate assumptions
are met;
(4) and is 'demonstrably valid' (and we don't speak of 'face
validity', do we ?).
Otherwise, we could simply agree on the fact that only little has
changed in publication practices since Meehl's famous text in 1957 on
the significance of the insignificance -- and on the statement of
'some idiot could offer pseudo stat- reasons for something' and, with
a little luck, it will be even published in a scientific journal,
couldn't we ?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
