DaHuuuuuudge said:
This is a statistical inference test for a graph. The null hypothesis states that there is no correlation, whereas the alternative hypothesis states that there is. You seem to think that alpha levels are only used in conjunction with r-values, however the point i'm trying to make is that alpha values for determining statistical significance (the original segue for the whole 'disagreement') do not need to have an accompying r-val. An example? Let's say that i have to test data from a sample survey that talks about proportions of married men. You would use an alpha-level in your statistical inference to test the probability of obtaining a sample such as this. I know I'm right, i'm not sure why i keep responding. -_- |
I never said Alpha levels were only used in conjuction with R levels. I suggested however that they were used with conjunction and R value. While you suggested alpha levels have nothing to do with correlation or R Values. As an example your talking about not seeing anything about correlation with anything in statistical significance. Essentially I was argueing that squares are rectangles, while you were suggested they aren't.
Considering we are talking about whether the correlation with gun ownership and homicide is significant... I don't see what your perception of the arguement has to do with anything. Since i would still be correct in terms of the original dataset
This can be seen by the fact that you just needed to invent a whole new data set unrelated to the data at hand to give an example of Cronbach's Alpha. Which I do know about, do aknowledge exist, and have even used before. I just don't understand what it has to do with the data at hand.
To me, it seems like you originally thought tha Cronbach's Alpha was the be all end all of statistical significance. Or jut thought it was the only use of "Alpha" Ignoring Alpha in regards to Pearsons R... or just not knowing of Pearson R's existence. (Which is what you'd use in the original dataset in question.) Which i suppose I could see if you spent a lot of time working for say the Census or the BLS since you might not have a lot of use for Pearson's R.
Though perhaps the whole thing is a misconception on both of our parts about what the arguement was about.
Though why if this was your arguement you didn't say "What about Cronbach's Alpha?" or even just link to it... I'm not quite sure.