In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is another definition [ of "Type III error" ] cited a few
> times which is seemingly technical, "rejecting the null, but in the
> wrong direction". I think that is a similar sneer at bone-headedness.
> There is no "wrong direction" with a two-tailed test...
Are you really suggesting that researchers who reject H0: mu=0 with a
two-tailed test act thereafter as if they know that mu is not zero,
but have no idea whether it's positive or negative? I think this is
highly implausible. Such "Type III" errors seems to me to be quite on
a par with Type I and Type II errors.
Radford Neal
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
