Bob Wheeler 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. [snip the rest]
Even Sir Isaac Newton, in correspondence with his publisher, discussed
what we call 'massaging' of data until it fit right. Nonetheless, I
spend a fair amount of time in an UG metallurgy lab emphasizing that
_they_ cannot adjust and discard embarrassing points to fit preconceptions.
Cheers,
Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
