Irving Scheffe wrote:
First, you're addressing the wrong question.
We are not interested, in the example, in the "ability" of the
players. We are interested in whether, over the course of the
preceding 162 games, the Yanks outhomered the Tigers by a substantial
I think that illustrates my
many moons ago ... there was a post that referred to a case at MIT ...
where women biology faculty charged sex discrimination in that they thought
their salaries were much lower than they should be ... due to the fact that
they were women
then, there was post after post ... arguing this
On 14 Mar 2001 21:55:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(This guy is already posting irrelevant rants as if
I've driven him up the wall or something. So this
is just another poke in the eye with a blunt
- I hate having to explain jokes -
On 14 Mar 2001 15:34:45 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
At 04:10 PM 3/14/01 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
Oh, I see. You do the opposite. Your own
flabby rationalizations might be subtly valid,
and, on close examination,
*do* have some
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, dennis roberts wrote in part:
ps ... a conclusion that lots of people don't agree with one another
will not be too helpful
Maybe not, but it sure would be realistic -- which might be reassuring
to some of our students who have their own doubts on that score about our
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:09:26 GMT, Jerry Dallal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Irving Scheffe wrote:
Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty:
http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
It is frustrating to keep getting errors when I try to access a
printable version of the
Thanks again for the clarification, Jim. I think we
are in essential agreement.
To reply succinctly to your message:
1. Certainly, as a general rule
one should *always* look at distributional
shape as well as summary statistics. Feminists seldom
do, by the way, in advancing arguments about
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:53:12 +, Thom Baguley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Irving Scheffe wrote:
Imagine it is 1961. Our question is, which outfield has better
home run hitters, the Yankees or Detroit? Here are the numbers
for the Yankee and Tiger starting Outfields.
Yanks
At 02:25 PM 3/12/01 +, Radford Neal wrote:
In this context, all that matters is that there is a difference. As
explained in many previous posts by myself and others, it is NOT
appropriate in this context to do a significance test, and ignore the
difference if you can't reject the null
Jim:
I agree with Radford Neal's comments,
and urge careful reconsideration of the
foundation behind some of the comments
made.
For example, suppose you had a department
in which the citation data were
Males Females
12220 1298
2297 1102
The male with 12220 is, let's
Irving Scheffe wrote:
Imagine it is 1961. Our question is, which outfield has better
home run hitters, the Yankees or Detroit? Here are the numbers
for the Yankee and Tiger starting Outfields.
Yanks Tigers
- --
61 45
54 19
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not think of it in terms of "Could this difference be
produced by 6 players of equal ability influenced by a large number of random
factors". In that case a significance test might have some value in evaluating
the
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
Scheffe) wrote:
My comments are written as responses to the technical
comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
since I omit
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:38:59 -0800, Irving Scheffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
Scheffe) wrote:
My comments are written as responses to the technical
I think we've now reached an adequate point of conclusion:
To summarize Mr. Ulrich's latest post:
1. He doesn't think his previous litany of
unfounded emotional attributions is "ad-hominem."
Yet, he continues the same strategy here, characterizing
the Hausman-Steiger report as an attempt to
I would like to make direct contact with Dr. Scheffe. I have some comments
that I would like to direct to him but not to the mailing list. I would
appreciate it if he could contact me directly.
Dr. Robert C. Knodt
4949 Samish Way, #31
Bellingham, WA 98226
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The point to
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
Scheffe) wrote:
My comments are written as responses to the technical
comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
since I omit redundancy and mostly ignore his 'venting.'
I think I offer a little different
Rich,
Both Radford Neal and I have asked
for a statistical rationale supporting
your claim that a significance test
that you advocated
can provide useful information when applied
to the MIT senior biologist data. You
haven't provided one. Instead, you
cite from a web statistics guide which
in
- I want to comment a little more thoroughly about the lines I cited:
what Garson said about inference, and his citation of Olkey.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:21:41 -0500, Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[ snip, previous discussion ]
me
I think that Garson is wrong, and the last 40 years
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, if you don't have "statistical power," then you don't ask
for a 5% test, or (maybe) any test at all. The JUSTIFICATION for
having a test on the MIT data is that the power is sufficient to say
something.
The reason
Milo:
Sure, although I don't see how that is relevant
to the MIT situation, which attributed
the current status of women there to
discrimination, based on an undisclosed
methodology.
More generally, one CAN indeed do randomization tests
on similar data even though there is no inference toward
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:12:46 GMT, "Milo Schield" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Snip
But in most of your examples MORE is being claimed. In most cases, the
claim includes an inference. Once the claim involves an inference, then a
statistical test may be relevant.
In one case, the claim was
Gene,
You have made extended comments about
the IWF report "Confession without Guilt?"
(at http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
about women biologists at MIT.
Some background information:
The IWF is the second in a series criticizing
the MIT report on the Status of Women.
The
The link to the datafiles appears to be case sensitive, so
http://www.es.umb.edu/edg/ECOS611/MIT-IWF.zip
should be:
http://www.es.umb.edu/edg/ECOS611/mit-iwf.zip
Gene Gallagher
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
=
24 matches
Mail list logo
