[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am not twisting you words. The data speak for themselves, at least when we
> bother to explain how we get them. I have repeatedly asked you to show us
> how you calculated your subsample and you are being evasive, pretending that
> I am too dense to see what you did. Does you method fill out the corners of
> the cross tabulation of x1 and x2? Are the intervals from which you sampled,
> equal across the ranges of the variables?
I am not being evasive, but I need to know whether you agree that subsamples
inherit from the larger sample their causality. To wit: If I have a sample in
which y is caused by x1 and x2, is the same thing true of the subsample?
In your interpretation of the term "causality".
I don't care at this point about CR or anything else. This is a philosophical
question. If you agree with this notion of inheritance, then there is a point
to continue. If you say inheritance does not hold, or it depends on the way
in which the subsample is derived, then your definition of causality differs
from mine. I don't care if it does, but then I will just concede that we
agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Which is it?
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
