This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5C80BC06D9EDF21501161EC3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------30A9826BA49F60D5C9B364CC"
--------------30A9826BA49F60D5C9B364CC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The word in your comment which catches my eye is "accurately" in
>are we able to accurately say ... that if we had the results as in TEST
C
>... that we are more convinced that the null of 100 is NOT true ...
than
>for TEST B or TEST A?
The question of "being convinced" is clearly a subjective one, what
convinces you may not convince me, naturally. How we apply "accurately"
to it, I don't know.
If one takes the position advocated by L. J. Savage, that one wishes to
avoid inconsistency in his judgements, then the whole of Bayesian
probability theory is available as a normative theory of how we "should"
make judgements about evidence.
Significance tests have been shown to violate this consistency
requirement in a number of ways, but that doesn't mean that they can't
be used as an index of the strength of evidence, everything else being
equal.
>no ifs, ands, or buts or it depends on this or that ... just straight
>talking ... can we say this?
Of course, if you want a simple answer without conditions, you have to
ask a simple question. I can't imagine anyone giving you a "straight
talking" answer without qualifications to this question.
--------------30A9826BA49F60D5C9B364CC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The word in your comment which catches my eye is "accurately" in
<p>>are we able to accurately say ... that if we had the results as in
TEST C
<br>>... that we are more convinced that the null of 100 is NOT true ...
than
<br>>for TEST B or TEST A?
<p>The question of "being convinced" is clearly a subjective one, what
convinces you may not convince me, naturally. How we apply "accurately"
to it, I don't know.
<p>If one takes the position advocated by L. J. Savage, that one wishes
to avoid inconsistency in his judgements, then the whole of Bayesian probability
theory is available as a normative theory of how we "should" make judgements
about evidence.
<p>Significance tests have been shown to violate this consistency requirement
in a number of ways, but that doesn't mean that they can't be used as an
index of the strength of evidence, <i>everything else being equal.</i><i></i>
<p><i>>no ifs, ands, or buts or it depends on this or that ... just straight</i>
<br><i>>talking ... can we say this?</i>
<p>Of course, if you want a simple answer without conditions, you have
to ask a simple question. I can't imagine anyone giving you a "straight
talking" answer without qualifications to this question.</html>
--------------30A9826BA49F60D5C9B364CC--
--------------5C80BC06D9EDF21501161EC3
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rabeldin.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Richard A. Beldin
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rabeldin.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Beldin;Richard
tel;home:787-255-2142
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:netdial.caribe.net/~rabeldin/Home.html
org:BELDIN Consulting Services
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Professional Statistician (retired)
adr;quoted-printable:;;PO Box 716=0D=0A;Boquer�n;PR;00622;
fn:Richard A. Beldin
end:vcard
--------------5C80BC06D9EDF21501161EC3--
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
