Remember that article on the misuse of statistics in science which I apparently rashly endorsed? http://tinyurl.com/yh7sk7r
Well, the _American Scientist_ newsletter reports that it is "one of the all-time most viewed news items by subscribers to Science in the News Daily". Of course, that says nothing about whether it was a good or bad article, only that it evoked much interest (or its title, anyway). Locally, two of our authoritative sources on statistics weighed in on it, and both found the article sadly wanting. But wait... One trashed it because "There is little here that hasn't been written about and widely known since the 1960s." In other words, ho-hum, we already knew that. The other said: "For me the only "it" that is wrong is this article ... in many ways" Can they both be right? (For the record, I agree with Chris that the content of the article is not largely new, but the author does have some nifty recent references in support, and it seems to me worthwhile to have the issues effectively re-stated as he does. I also acknowledge that Jim has contributed some thoughtful critical comments. In other words, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. But I do not think the essay has a hidden agenda to defend the evil drug industry. I checked. Tom Siegfried has an impressive record as a science journalist.) Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1466 or send a blank email to leave-1466-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
