Michael also asks how to subscribe. A generalized answer points to
the useful resource
http://hardwick.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/hpda.exe/mff/netres/statlist.html
filled with both anecdotal and empirical information on the many statistics
mailing lists.
At 8:16 AM -0800 12/28/99, Muriel Strand wrote:
>pardon me, but my reaction is not personal. the precise meaning of
>basic important words
>such as empirical and anecdotal matters, because otherwise discourse
>fails to communicate
>accurately.
>
>if one is talking about a single empirical observation, i fail to
>see the distinction
>between an anecdote and an empirical observation.
>
>the strength of a single empirical or anecdotal observation can
>vary. if it disproves a
>theory by providing a contrary example, it can be very powerful.
>
>is the "empirical method" the same as the "scientific method?" is
>the "empirical method"
>the same as the "statistical method?" likely not, as the existence
>of different words
>usually arises from differences in meaning.
>
>is there such a critter as the "anecdotal method?" philosophy perhaps?
>
>i await with great interest enlightenment from list-members.
>
>muriel
>
>Michael Atherton wrote:
>
> > I had said that, "...your 'evidence' looks much more anecdotal
>than empirical".
> > Anecdotal means: a short narrative concerning an interesting or amusing
> > incident or event. I still believe that your evidence looks more anecdotal
> > than empirical. Especially in the sense of "empirical method", where a
> > single data point is not normally considered strong evidence.
> >
> > PS: Since you cc'ed your response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] perhaps
> > you could tell me how to subscribe to this list-server (or if anyone else
> > reading this overly personal exchange could tell me how it would be
> > helpful).
> >
> > Muriel Strand wrote:
> >
> > > please note that empirical means "relying on observation or
>experiment; guided by
> > > experience rather than theory." i had always understood that a
>single observation was
> > > by definition empirical???
> > >
> > > and then, how exactly can a reference be itself empirical if
>what one observes is a
> > > description of observation/s of event/s?
> > >
> > > Michael Atherton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Muriel Strand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > > (besides your "evidence" looks much more anecdotal than empirical).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007
>
>--
>Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official
>position is completely
>coincidental.
>
>Muriel Strand, P.E.
>Air Resources Engineer
>CA Air Resources Board
>2020 L Street
>Sacramento, CA 59814
>916-324-9661
>916-327-8524 (fax)
>www.arb.ca.gov
===
Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics;
US mail: 8142 Math Sciences Bldg, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1554
phone (310)-825-9550; fax (310)-206-5658; email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw and http://home1.gte.net/datamine/
============================================================================
No matter where you go, there you are. --- Buckaroo Banzai
============================================================================
