Statistics should be a philosophical tool to help us pursue honest science. An added benefit is that is also a mechanical tool that performs calculations that we then interpret guided by a sound philosophy of science.
randy On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Andy Dyer wrote: > One of the bigger problems with the statistics courses (Bus., > Psych, or > Math) that we accept/require for undergrads is that they have so very > little to do with anything relevant. Out of frustration, I created a > course for majors that begins with data collection and ends with a > presentation and covers the steps along the way, and in so doing I can > easily incorporate the statistics needed. For what, >90% of all > questions?, we need Chi2, t-test (1-way AOV), correlation, and/or > regression. Very simple stuff. We get in trouble when we go deeper > than that without the training or experience. We do not need less > training in statistics, we do need more appropriate instruction. > > For example, to my recollection, a most valuable piece of advice > from my > diss. adviser was to stop focusing on the means and look at the > variation, particularly on graphs. In other words, learning to > interpret statistics has to do with knowing what is important in a > statistical sense. For my beginning students, the ABCs are > randomization, replication, and control, with considerable focus on > the > importance and influence of sample size. > > On the other hand, the course isn't really about statistics, it's > about > experimental design and then that leads into the appropriate tests for > the particular questions. > > My vote? Keep the statistics, but be careful letting others teach it. > Cheers, > Andy > > > Andrew R. Dyer > Asst. Professor of Ecology > Dept. of Biology & Geology > University of South Carolina Aiken > 471 University Parkway > Aiken, SC 29801 > Vox 803-641-3443 > Fax 803-641-3251 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Silvert > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: curriculum question > > I didn't expect much agreement with my posting, and I'll just > comment on > two > points that Roper raises, interspersed with his posting below: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James J. Roper, Consultor - Tradutor" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: curriculum question > > > >> Every really good paper published in Ecology and >> many other ecological journals required the statistics that was >> > included > >> to make their point. >> > > True, but that doesn't justify the statistics. I've taken a cynical > approach > to this, on occasion when my colleagues have asked if I can suggest > statistical methods to analyse the data I usually find that the > conclusions > are obvious just from looking at the data - so I discuss the > conclusions > > with them, and then once we know the result they find it easy to > come up > > with enough statistical filler to get the paper past the referees. > > >> Bill goes on to contradict himself when he says: >> >> "In terrestrial work where >> sampling tends to be easier and one can lay out quadrats on foot, >> > etc., > >> statistical methods can be very useful." >> > > It's not really a contradiction. I pointed out that there are > exceptions, > and my criticism of the use of statistics was not categorical. > Moderation in > debate is not always a vice, no matter what Barry Goldwater said. > > Bill Silvert >
