Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7090Re: [Synoptic-L] Some numerical results

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Dec 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:43 AM 12/2/2001 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
      > What surprises me about this whole discussion is that you have been
      >trying to make sense of a set of results which represents a small
      >proportion of the published data, and apparently (unless I've missed
      >something) without any attempt to check for overall consistency.

      In this regard, it occurs to me that the 95% level of assessing
      significance is far too generous. 95% implies that one in twenty
      may be wrong, but in our data set we have 19 total sections (222
      through 002) for a total of 171 different pair-wise comparisons
      (19*18/2). If 1 in 20 is wrong (inherent in the 95% level), then
      about 9 of the "significant" correlations are really just to due
      to random chance.

      This is why in such analyses textbooks recommend using P < 0.05/C,
      which, in this case, works out to P < 0.0003. Thus, only those
      correlations at that level should be considered significant. And
      any attempts to build a theory should only be concerned with
      those correlations.

      Stephen Carlson
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic