Paige Miller wrote:
>EugeneGall wrote:
>>
>This hardly "PROVES" anything. It is more a statement about what has
>happened in the past.
"Proves" was in the original article. I'm assuming Ellenberg, a mathematics
prof, was using 'proves' in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. However, he was serious
in
I'd like to note that Ellenberg is really "off base" into thinking that Galton
was fooled by RTM into thinking that breeding would reduce diversity. As
Stigler's "Statistics on the Table" documents, Galton was initially fooled by
RTM, but then worked out the mechanism behind RTM and showed that r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alex Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Tukey differentiates "data analysis" and "statistics." The former may
>or may not employ probability while the latter is based upon probability.
>Resampling techniques use "empirical probability." In the Fisherian sense,
>
Melady Preece writes:
>Question 2: Can an effect size of .29 (or .33) be considered
>clinically significant?
With all due respect, clinical significance can only be assessed by
clinicians (i.e., subject matter experts). The doctors and nurses I work
with want me to tell them what a clinically s
As the other reply suggested, perhaps there is a problem with local
maxima.
Or maybe, since these are different programs, the commands in one case
were incorrect. Why not run a metric MDS for comparison purposes?
That might help you decide whether the Alscal or NCSS results are
suspect.
John U
regression to the mean has NOTHING to do with raw numbers ... it ONLY has
to do with relative location withIN a distribution
example: i give a course final exam the first day ... and get scores (on
100 item test) from 10 to 40 ... and an alternate form of the final on the
last day ... and get
On 14 Jul 2001 00:26:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EugeneGall)
wrote:
[ snip, about Bonds and home runs, and Regression to the Mean ]
> I'd be curious if reduction in the 1st half leaders was comparable to the
> improvement in the 2nd half leaders.
Huh?
If you are asking what I think you are ask
EugeneGall wrote:
>
> Jordan Ellenberg, in today's Slate, PROVES that Bonds won't break the
> HR record because of regression to the mean. The argument is a
> little sloppy, but there is definitely some RTM involved:
> "If our discussion above is correct, then hitters who
>lead the major l
