Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent.
Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are "rather broad minded" or perhaps "forgiving."
Our standards are low, as anyone working in conventional science will clearly see. Mincing words only makes us look like we are playing word games or do not know how to judge good and bad work. Of course the standard has to be low because the field has only just matured sufficiently so that good papers are possible. Many of the early papers had to be poorly written and wrong in many respects, because the information and concepts were so incomplete. Nevertheless, they contain useful information that becomes more easily identified as we better understand the effect. All new discoveries go through this process and the problem is not usually used to totally reject the idea, as is done in this field.
Ed
Okay, it means the same thing, but the situation calls to mind Darrell Huff's observation in his immortal book "How To Lie With Statistics:"
"The fact is, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science. A great many manipulations and even distortions are possible within the bounds of propriety. Often the statistician must choose among methods, a subjective process, and find the one that he will use to represent the facts. In commercial practice he is about as unlikely to select an unfavorable method as a copywriter is to call his sponsor's product flimsy and cheap when he might as well say light and economical."
- Jed
