Voices of dissent: statistical hypothesis testing

[Kenneth 'pawl' Collins]

Hmmmm... anyone know how the FN changed from "wings.jpg" to
wings(1).jpg?

"Anyone, anyone anyone... anyone? :-]

ken

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Case in-point: The JPEG image I've attached to this post Verifies
>that 'quantum mechanics' is not a unique solution in 'nuclear
>physics'. 'qm' is just coersed-consensus stuff.
>
>This realization matters, but I've not even been able to discuss the
>concepts in 'physics' NGs. My posts have been Censored completely,
>not on the basis of anything that's in-Science, but as a consequence
>of their 'divergence from groupwise coersed-consnesus.
>
>That ain't Science, and any applications of Statistics with respect
>to such are meaningless.
>
>The image: It maps the natural abundances of all the known isotopes
>in a novel way, disclosing that there exists a uniform =overall=
>energydynamic with respect to which the natural abundances occur in
a
>'valley'. Data were extracted from the TOI Isotopes database which,
>when I did the analysis, was available at:
>
>http://isotopes.lbl.gov.iaotopes/vuensdf.html
>
>k. p. collins.
>
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Basically, I agree with the gist of the position Glen 'outlined'
>>below, but I come at the problem from a different perspective.
>>
>>In the work I've done, I've explored deeply into how this or that
>>'scientific' bandwagon's  being jumped-on is the primary thing that
>>determines the course that 'science' will take - has nothing to do
>>with Science, and everything to do with groupwise
coersed-consensus.
>>
>>Apply Statistics to such, and the =only= thing that can happen is
>>that the 'statistics' will positively or negatively reflect =only=
>>with respect to that which is bounded within groupwise
>>coersed-consensus, which amounts to just more, meaningless,
>groupwise
>>coersed-consensus, not Science.
>>
>>That it's so is really-Big-Time-Sorrowful stuff, 'cause there are
>>problems whose Resolutions actually matter.
>>
>>k. p. collins
>>
>>Glen M. Sizemore wrote in message <3dcc1e88_1 at news.teranews.com>...
>>>From the following website:
>>>
>>>http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/edu/staff/jhattie/StatSignif.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"If we can control statistical significance simply by changing
>>sample size,
>>>if statistical significance is not equivalent to scientific
>>significance, if
>>>statistical significant testing corrupts the scientific method,
and
>>if it
>>>has only questionable relevance to one out of fifteen threats to
>>research
>>>validity, then I believe we should eliminate statistical
>>significance
>>>testing in our research. Such testing is not only useless, it is
>>also
>>>harmful because it is interpreted to mean something it is not"
>>(Carver,
>>>1978, p. 392).
>>>
>>>· "The test of statistical significance in psychological research
>>may be
>>>taken as an instance of a kind of essential mindlessness in the
>>conduct of
>>>research" (Morrison & Henkel, 1970, p. 436)
>>>
>>>· "Significance tests do not provide the information that
>scientists
>>need,
>>>and furthermore, they are not the most effective method for
>>analyzing and
>>>summarizing data" (Clark, 1963, pp. 469).
>>>
>>>· "The time has arrived for educational researchers to divest
>>themselves of
>>>the yoke of statistical hypothesis testing" (Shulman, 1970, p.
>389).
>>>
>>>· "The time has arrived to exorcise the null hypothesis"
(Cronbach,
>>1975, p.
>>>124).
>>>
>>>· A null hypothesis test is a ritualized exercise of devil's
>>advocacy
>>>(Abelson, 1995, p. 12).
>>>
>>>· "It would hardly be exaggeration to describe hypothesis testing
>as
>>a
>>>method of giving a misleading answer to a question which nobody is
>>asking!"
>>>(Novick & Jackson, 1974, p. 245).
>>>
>>>Carver, R.P. (1978). The case against statistical significance.
>>Harvard
>>>Educational Review, 48, 378-399.
>>>
>>>Morrison, D.E., & Henkel, R.E. (1970). Significance tests in
>>behavioral
>>>research: Skeptical conclusions and beyond. In D.E. Morrison &
R.E.
>>Henkel
>>>(Eds.), The significance testing controversy: A reader. Chicago:
>>Aldine.
>>>
>>>Clark, C.A. (1963). Hypothesis testing in relation to statistical
>>>methodology. Review of Educational Research, 33, 455-473.
>>>
>>>Shulman, L.S. (1970). Reconstruction of educational research.
>Review
>>of
>>>Educational Research, 40, 371-393. Task Force on Statistical
>>Inference
>>>Initial report.
>>>
>>>Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific
>>psychology.
>>>American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
>>>
>>>Abelson, R.P. (1995) Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale,
>>NJ:
>>>Erlbaum.
>>>
>>>Novick, M., & Jackson, P. (1974). Statistical Methods for
>>Educational and
>>>Psychological Research New York: McGraw Hill.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>