jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu: >Am I missing something ... isn't it important to determine >whether an effect has a low probability of occurring by chance?
I think the issue is one of terminology and philosophy, between "probability" and "likelihood". Once an effect has occurred, I am very uncomfortable with assigning any probability other than 1 to its occurrence, and any probability at all to its causes. I wrote something about this a couple of weeks ago in the thread "Laplace and the Monty Hall paradox?", which may be seen at <http://tinyurl.com/7yhk> which is an alias for > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MPG.18c2c43a1f54d69b98a7ae%40news.odyssey.net -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "Walrus meat as a diet is less repulsive than seal." -- Harry de Windt, /From Paris to New York by Land/ (1904) . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
