In Reply to: And his opinions, but I'm confused so despite my better judgment... posted by kerr on October 12, 2008 at 17:12:11:
As I have said, DBT results are what they are. If someone draws invalid conclusions from them, that does not reflect either on the methodology or the results.
One cannot absolutely prove the null hypothesis statistically, but Aczel seems to accept the one he has stated. However, though the conclusion he has drawn is invalid (that is, it does not follow logically), that does not necessarily mean the null hypothesis is false.
The problem is to disprove Aczel's null hypothesis and we are still waiting for such proof.
This issue has been discussed by Prof. Carlstrom, link below.
"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It's just your lack of logic that confuses you. - Pat D 10/13/0807:23:58 10/13/08 (14)
- Statistical Fools and Statistical Liars - Tony Lauck 09:17:57 10/13/08 (3)
- RE: Statistical Fools and Statistical Liars - Pat D 09:56:51 10/13/08 (2)
- RE: Statistical Fools and Statistical Liars - Tony Lauck 13:30:24 10/13/08 (1)
- RE: Statistical Fools and Statistical Liars - Pat D 13:50:35 10/13/08 (0)
- Well, give me a break! Making logic of the illogical is hard work! - kerr 08:22:35 10/13/08 (1)
- No. - Pat D 09:44:37 10/13/08 (0)
- "we are still waiting for such proof" - who are those "we"? I, for one, am not. - carcass93 07:34:07 10/13/08 (7)
- I appreciate music, not differences. - Pat D 08:07:52 10/13/08 (6)
- Sure I did - it's not overly long, nor terribly complex. My impression: - carcass93 08:22:37 10/13/08 (5)
- Only ABX will satisfy Carlstrom - kerr 09:00:59 10/13/08 (4)
- Only ABX? Man, that's just weird. - carcass93 11:30:33 10/13/08 (3)
- RE: Only ABX? Man, that's just weird. - andy_c 17:14:11 10/13/08 (2)
- Agreed - kerr 05:46:19 10/15/08 (0)
- Talk about "open to interpretation"! But, I definitely like yours. N/T - carcass93 19:28:37 10/13/08 (0)