The one right below is just plain wrong, confusing conditional probability with unconditional probability: "p = .000 ... This expression implies erroneously that there is a zero probability that the investigators have committed a Type I error, that is, a false rejection of a true null hypothesis (Streiner, 2007). That conclusion is logically absurd, because unless one has examined essentially the entire population, there is always some chance of a Type I error, no matter how meager." Well, if the null hypothesis is false, the probability of committing a Type I error is, indeed, zero, and it can be argued that the null hypothesis is most often false. Furthermore, "p = .000" does not mean that p is exactly zero. To three point precision, .0002 is .000.
Cheers, Karl L. Wuensch -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Roig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 7:40 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid My favorite pet peeve: "Scientific proof". The one I was most surprised about: "Operational definition". Another 'must read' from Scott Lilienfeld: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full Miguel --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b3534420e&n=T&l=tips&o=46293 or send a blank email to leave-46293-13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b35344...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=46342 or send a blank email to leave-46342-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
