problem for the authors' interpretation of the
results, but it seems reasonable to expect editors to be more sensitive
to their readers' need to know exactly what is going on.
--
**
`o^o' * Neil W. Henry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
estion." . . . The design best for
sharpening a limited statistical conclusion may not be the best basis
for the broader inferences. " (p. 231)
Introductory statistics classes, with their artificially created null hypotheses
and impractical data gatherin
nd Patrick Suppes ("probabilitic theory of
causality").
>
> Has anyone run across this?
>
> Thanks.
> -Tony Reina
--
*
`o^o' * Neil W. Henry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *
-<:>- * V
