On 19 Mar 2003 10:58:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote: > At 12:38 PM 3/19/2003, Rich Ulrich wrote: > > > - if you don't figure out that there are > >various ways to use p-values, you might > >end up as negative and silly as Dennis, here - > > > > > >Even if we know that an effect is not absolutely zero, > >p-values are one report on the strength of the evidence. > yes, silly me BUT, i respectfully disagree > > for the above statement you are suggesting that the p value gives you > information on the "strength" of evidence for the possible fact that the > effect is NOT absolutely 0 ...
No, no, no. You don't have to invent your naive straw-man for what I was "suggesting", since I was explicit in my NEXT line. "- the strength of the evidence? Whether *chance* might be sufficient to account for what has been observed?" Not 'the fact that the effect is NOT absolutely 0'. But 'whether the occurrence is unlikely by chance.' In *learning* something new, it is valuable (or essential) to be able to repeat it in your own words. But it is MORE than a warning when we quiz students and the reproduction comes back badly flawed. [Somebody did NOT get it here.] Dennis cannot repeat, word for word, what the reason is for hypothesis tests. He misses it badly even though it was immediately in front of him. - so his conclusions are not surprising to me, < snip, some > > > again, i repeat, p values are rather useless > > silly as it may be > -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
