Yes, yes statisticians. But just remember that this is a plague that
we have visited on ourselves. And continue to -- just peruse
practically any statistical journal.
("People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones")
Cheers,
Bert
(To non-native English speakers: my apologies for the bad English pun)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Greg Snow <greg.s...@imail.org> wrote:
> Well this starts veering towards fortune(194) and fortune(218).
>
> Though I did one time receive a response from an editor and reviewers asking
> for fewer p-values in favor of more confidence intervals. I was excited that
> someone was willing to move in that direction (unfortunately, that particular
> study was one for which the p-values were more meaningful than the confidence
> intervals).
>
> I have successfully talked some researchers out of presenting p-values in
> favor of more meaningful presentations, though it is often harder than it
> should be (Had a stanza from "The Hunting of the Snark" posted on the wall
> for a while after one researcher finally gave in after the 3rd person told
> him the same thing).
>
> I am somewhat curious what the editor thinks the null and alternative
> hypotheses are, what the real null and alternative hypotheses are, and what
> the interpretation of a failure to reject will be (especially if there is low
> power).
>
> If you cannot come up with meaningful/compelling answers to the above
> questions, but the editor still insists on a p-value, then you can always use
> SnowsCorrectlySizedButOtherwiseUselessTestOfAnything (TeachingDemos package).
> Though that could prove the exception to Dieter's rule.
>
> --
> Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D.
> Statistical Data Center
> Intermountain Healthcare
> greg.s...@imail.org
> 801.408.8111
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces@r-
>> project.org] On Behalf Of Boris New
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:14 AM
>> To: Thomas Lumley
>> Cc: r-help@r-project.org; Brian S Cade; r-help-boun...@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [R] Comparing non nested models with correlation
>> coefficients (inspired from Lorch and Myers )
>>
>> Thank you very much for your answers.
>>
>> The problem is that the editor wants a formal test. So I guess that the
>> Vuong test should be ok...
>>
>> 2011/3/24 Thomas Lumley <tlum...@uw.edu>
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Brian S Cade <ca...@usgs.gov> wrote:
>> > > As a follow-up to Greg's suggested graphical presentation, it seems
>> like
>> > > the Vuong test is sometimes used to compare fits of non nested
>> models.
>> > >
>> >
>> > There is a nice practical example of this with code in R, by Cosma
>> > Shalizi and coworkers, at
>> > http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/491.html
>> >
>> > The application is the tendency of physicists and people who read
>> > Wired to see power law distributions everywhere, and Vuong's test is
>> > used to determine whether a power law fits better than a lognormal
>> > (which it typically doesn't).
>> >
>> > -thomas
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thomas Lumley
>> > Professor of Biostatistics
>> > University of Auckland
>> >
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-
>> guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
--
Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
