Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: RE: Simulation question


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: RE: Simulation question
Date   Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:22:33 -0000

There is a more serious point arising from 
slips like this: why do people cling to this 
terminology? Not only are "dependent" and 
"independent" already burdened with other 
mathematical and statistical meanings, they are close 
enough to be rather easy confused. 

I acknowledge that there seems to be no consensus 
either within or across disciplines on 
good terminology, but that lack of consensus cuts 
both ways: it means you can tie your flag to _one_ good 
terminology (and then argue it out with 
bosses, referees and editors). With (e.g.) 
"response" and "predictors" or "covariates"
the chance of getting confused is much less. 
Let me stress the "(e.g.)": I am just saying
this is a terminology I like better than 
dependent and independent variables. Others
will differ, but I'd still like to hear 
what the defence for "dependent" and "independent" 
is, other than that it is still common.  

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

adiallo5@worldbank.org
> 
> Ooops!
> >>> I have in mind the case where a lot of dependent 
> variables are involved.
> I mean: independent.
> 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index