At 03:08 AM 3/4/01 -0500, Donald Burrill wrote:

>Do you have a reasoned objection to "1 - alpha"?  In other contexts we 
>routinely use, e.g., "1 - Rsq" for the proportion of variance unexplained 
>by the model being considered.  The "1 minus" construction shows the 
>logical and arithmetical connection between two quantities, which can 
>easily get lost if one uses very different-looking terms for those 
>quantities.

seems like that each cell should have a probability definition that is NOT
dependent on the probability name for another cell ... 

i know that sometimes power is "defined" as 1 - beta ... but, beta could
therefore (algebraically and logically) be defined as 1 - power ... so,
these are circular in a way 

beta AND power ... just like alpha and "that other cell" should have their
own (independent of the other cell names) probability definitions even if
there is additivity between 2 quantities

i don't think that there is anything UNnecessary about having a better
lable and probability definition for the ret null if null true cell ...
after all .. it is a correct decision AND, we should above all ... try to
encourage making the correct decision .... even if this particular cell is
rather UNinteresting to folks ... 

one could make the argument that in a trial ... making the decision to
acquit a person who is really innocent ... is just as important as
convicting someone of a minor piddly crime ... in fact, one could make the
case in many instances that aquittal is more important than conviction ... 

that is ... power in many cases is a highly overrated CORRECT decision


==============================================================
dennis roberts, penn state university
educational psychology, 8148632401
http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm


=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
                  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================

Reply via email to