Your point is well taken, and I didn't mean to imply dishonesty either --
the term "fudged" was a poor choice, but I meant it in the sense of
manipulation or filtering, not necessarily conscious, and I mentioned that
it was an assertion.
Rich Strauss
At 06:13 PM 2/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Your point is a good one, but as a side issue, let
>me object to the word "fudged." It implies
>chicanery, which is not something that even Fisher
>cared to imply. No one will ever know why Mendel's
>results appear as they do, but It was not
>necessarily with an intent to mislead. An argument
>can be made, that his intent was to call attention
>to the regularities involved just as one does by
>showing a line on a plot instead of the scattered
>points from which it is calculated. Attitudes
>about data were different then. The scatter in
>this sort of data is large, and quite confusing.
>Look at the difficulties and puzzlements of the
>three individuals who rediscovered the phenomenon
>50 years later -- their data are very confusing,
>and none of the three got it quite right until
>they found Mendel's paper.
========================
Dr Richard E Strauss
Biological Sciences
Texas Tech University
Lubbock TX 79409-3131
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (formerly [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Phone: 806-742-2719
Fax: 806-742-2963
========================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
