the logic behind the null hypothesis method is flawed ... IF you are
looking for truth AND you keep following the logic of testing AGAINST a
null ...
first, say you reject the null of rho = 0 ...
then, LOGICALLY ... this says that since we don't know what truth is ...
just what we think it isn't ... we go
second, make the null as rho = .05 ... then .1, then .15 ... on and on
UNTIL we reach that magical spot (if ever) ... when we had the null of rho
= .65 ... and we suddenly RETAINED the null!
i guess we know what the truth is now, or, do we?
At 05:20 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>Just because Dennis has trouble with the null hypothesis, that does
>not mean that it is a bad idea to use them.
maybe not ... but i don't see that many if any reasons why and the
discussions are not swaying me ... (of course, that is not the posters
faults ... maybe just mine)
===========================================================================
This list is open to everyone. Occasionally, less thoughtful
people send inappropriate messages. Please DO NOT COMPLAIN TO
THE POSTMASTER about these messages because the postmaster has no
way of controlling them, and excessive complaints will result in
termination of the list.
For information about this list, including information about the
problem of inappropriate messages and information about how to
unsubscribe, please see the web page at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===========================================================================
