At 4:17 PM -0600 30/1/01, Jay Warner wrote:
>A technically correct conclusion is: The sample of 100 has a mu
>different than 100. there is a 0.08 prob ability (or 0.02, or
>0.008) that this statement is false.
>
>Have I not said the same thing? As p gets small, we are more
>confident that the null hypothesis is not valid.
I haven't followed this thread closely, but I would like to state the
only valid and useful interpretation of the p value that I know. If
you observe a positive effect, then p/2 is the probability that the
true value of the effect is negative. Equivalently, 1-p/2 is the
probability that the true value is positive.
The probability that the null hypothesis is true is exactly 0. The
probability that it is false is exactly 1.
Estimation is the name of the game. Hypothesis testing belongs in
another century--the 20th. Unless, that is, you base hypotheses not
on the null effect but on trivial effects...
Will
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
