Re: Statistical Conventions in Social Science papers?

On Dec 30, 6:24 am, "Reef Fish" <large_nassua_grou...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The error of omission was in NOT stating the Alternative Hypothesis,
which is critical in the DEFINITION of the p-value.


As I explained earlier this year, the difference is in whether
or not you approach this in a Fisherian way or a pure NP way.

In the case of continuous data, the strict inequality does not
affect the computation of a p-value, but for discrete data it
does, which is why NP suggests randomization on the
boundary.

But the examples carefully selected by David Winsemius were much
worse than that! Below are the reasons for my statement, spelled out:

David's examples (which I recognize) are both from
descriptions of Fisher-type significance testing, not NP
hypothesis testing. As I pointed out, Fisher did not
require a formal alternative hypothesis.

I know you disagree, that is fine. In reality, what is now
taught is often a hybrid of NP and Fisher theory. You
yourself have rejected it in favour of Bayesian approaches
anyway, suggesting there are multiple approaches to the
problem.

Kevin

.

Relevant Pages