Interview with Dr. Henry Bauer - Part 1

The p-value in his formula should be part of the model of the null hypothesis, not the alternative hypothesis. (I didn't actually look at Chris' formula to see if he got it correct. He was supposedly doing the same thing as Ioannidis in this paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ar...ed.0020124) where it can be seen that alpha is relevant to the null side (table 1).) 

Just in case this is meant to suggest that the equations I posted were wrong, they weren't. The first of my equations is equivalent to the equation immediately before Table 1 in the text of Ioannidis's paper. Obviously his alpha is the same as my a.

[Laird]

Linda, your spin doesn't deserve a response. "OK, I've made a few errors. I see where I went wrong". That's all it would have taken. Then everybody would have accepted it, respected you for acknowledging your mistakes, and we would have all moved on with a happier forum. As it is, I'm not going to argue with you, because you don't engage honestly, so there's no point.

If that happens, it's entirely malf's fault! 

Why, oh why, isn't there an emoticon for "I told you so"?

You know what would make a happier forum? If you would stop defaming other forum members.

I'll probably regret jumping in here, but I think you've defamed yourself sufficiently without anyone's aid.

My error seems to have been in expecting any sort of sincere discussion on your part.

And this seems to be an equally absurd response. To suggest that Chris and Laird have not engaged you in a sincere manner is comical at best, and something substantially less positive at worst. They've engaged you on this hilarious distraction of a topic for nearly this entire thread, and have responded in good faith throughout. Absolutely comical that you, of all people, would suggest insincerity on someone else's part.

And this seems to be an equally absurd response. To suggest that Chris and Laird have not engaged you in a sincere manner is comical at best, and something substantially less positive at worst. They've engaged you on this hilarious distraction of a topic for nearly this entire thread, and have responded in good faith throughout. Absolutely comical that you, of all people, would suggest insincerity on someone else's part.

I think you're right - it's not helpful to accuse someone of being insincere. In any dispute, we are all trying to be sincere. So I take that back and apologize to Chris and Laird for suggesting that they were not sincere.

And thinking on this, what I was really thinking of was the Cooperative Principle - how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way (the details of what this means are given here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle). This is worth considering, I hope.

Linda