Quite appreciated your comments Karl. It brought to mind a comment made by Paul Offit in his terrific book, "Autism's False Prophets." As many of you probably know, he provides a superb array of epidemiology research that refute any connection between vaccines and autism. However, he laments that those wishing to poke holes in his argument point to his admission that no scientist can ever totally reject a null hypothesis because 'unless one has examined essentially the entire population, there is always some chance of a Type I error, no matter how meager (Wuensch, 2015). As you say Karl, the best one can say is "mostly false."
Whatever, one can understand why this inability to totally reject a null hypothesis is challenging for the public not only to understand but also tempting to exploit. I mean if one exception is possible, then how many others might be out there? Whatever, for a decent review of Offit's book, you might wish to check out the folliwng: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/autisms-false-prophets/9780231146364 BTW, Offit had planned a book tour throughout the US but canceled due to the number of death threats he received. Joan [email protected] > 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=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=46342 > or send a blank email to > leave-46342-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@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=46343 or send a blank email to leave-46343-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
