Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2003, 11:44am (CST+6), JMB posted here again and
continued to demonstrate that he does not understand that the
statistical method I used in my paper can be used with different types
of problems.  He simply insists on disagreeing with things about which
he understands nothing.
===================
I had written: ++ The "r" value gives us some idea as to how well my two
groups are related to one another. The "p" value takes "N" into account
and thus gives a more meaningful value of relative relationship. In the
even that they are not related, "r"= 0 and "p" =1. A "p" > .05 has no
meaning in this type analysis. ++
---------- 
He, now: ~~ Something Larry has made up. Williams doesn't give this
method. Nobody does. In the Williams book, the method given is to assume
a null hypothesis of r = 0. Then you work out what the chances are of
getting the r value that you actually got if the real r should be 0.
Getting a p < .01 means that there should be less that one in 100 chance
of getting your r value if the true r was 0. It does not mean that there
is over 99% correlation between the sets. Williams never claims that the
p value means what Larry claims it means, and I can't even see anywhere
that Williams says something that could be honestly confused with such a
meaning. ~~
----------
+++ Note that he says "Getting a p < .01 means that there should be less
than one in 100 chance of getting your r value if the true r was 0".
That means the same thing as "Getting a p < .01 means that there should
be more than 99 in 100 chances of not getting your r value if the true r
was 0".  Thus the true r is not 0 with a 99% probability.  Thus they
would almost certainly be closely related.
- Note that in my paper the HP-1/Bi1 relationship has an r =.659, t =
3.155, and p = 01.  Thus they are almost certainly closely related by
what JMB is quoting. +++
        Regards,  Larry Athy, P.E.