In article <anetqm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would state otherwise; NEVER do any processing to your
> data not determined by the problem. Never normalize;
> never let the computer do your thinking for you.
Thanks for this, Herman!
It would be great if this opinion and advice could be communicated to
climatologists, who seem fixated on publishing their data in the form of
"normalised anomalies from the 1961 - 1990 average" - or some such
disguised version of the plain data, thus making things more difficult
for others (like me) who wish to examine their data further. Sometimes
they publish the "recipe" for the normalisation, but by no means always.
I can't understand what the advantage of "normalising" is supposed to be,
since any analysis will reach the same conclusions about relative
effects, normalised or not.
--
Robin Edwards ZFC Ta Serious Statistical Software
REAL Statistics with Graphics for RISC OS machines
Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] for details of our loan software.
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
