In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Tomorrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:53:17 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>The "expected number" is a technical term. >>Essentially, it means the average. That's why it makes sense. >I probably won't be able to reform the entire industry, but in this >context I think that saying "expected" when you mean "average" is >misleading. If you tell someone > "The expected number of boxes to get all the premiums is 149.25" >he probably will think you mean that if he buys 150 boxes he will get >all the premiums. Whenever I refer to an expected number I mean a >number multiplied by the probability of attaining it. This is only one of the many bad terms in the standard language. The French word for "expectation", "esperence", literally means "hope". You certainly do not hope to get 149.25 boxes. It is almost impossible to change terms. "Significance" is much worse, as the vast bulk of users of statistics seem to think that statistically significance gives a good indication of the importance of the difference, which it most definitely does not. Another bad one is "normal distribution". There is nothing normal about it, and it is generally only a fair approximation, even when it manages to do that. Much harm is done by using transformations to make things more normal. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
