Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Mar 2003 10:58:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote: > > 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.'
But then it requires a leap of faith to attribute observations to something else rather than chance merely because it is "unlikely by chance". -- # syrahz_derzai ; at yahoo.com . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
