Elliot Cramer wrote in message 877eqp$4ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
sounds like equal distribution of ignorance
Well, Elliot, "ignorance" by definition means lack of knowledge.
If I had the required knowledge, I wouldn't have asked the question.
So your observation is both tautological and
Ignore my first reply, please.
Prof. Cramer has explained thus:
"that's not what I meant; Boole used that phrase, referring to the
assumption that some people made about unknown probabilities ie if you
don't know it, assume it to be .5
In the semantic differential case you obviously can't
After looking in Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum's "The Measurement of Meaning"
and Snider and Osgood's "Semantic Differential Technique," plus several of
Osgood's individual articles, I cannot find the answer to this simple
question:
In scoring the Semantic Differential, does one treat MISSING
