Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 11 2011,07:16)|
|The problem is a bit weird. Suppose it turns out that a t-test says it's very unlikely that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu=mu_0, i.e. has a very small p-value, even though we know for sure that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu_0. Then what? The only sensible conclusion then seems to be that the sampling procedure was "non-random" in some sense. Does that make sense, Oh Bob?|
Yes, that makes sense.
Assuming there's a decent amount of data, I wouldn't worry too much about the distribution: if you've got the means and standard errors, you'll be fine. If I had the original data, I would have used a GLM. But if the original data were to hand, we wouldn't have this problem!
I'll let Erasmus explain the sins of log-transformation, and how it relates to cricket.
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)