Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thaumaturgy" data-source="post: 53033446" data-attributes="member: 169303"><p>I knew you'd trot that one out. But again, I have to wonder why a "published" statistician would avoid talking about statistics. And further why a "published" statistician would have such a weak understanding of the difference between a <strong>95&#37; confidence interval on the mean </strong>and <strong>a standard deviation</strong>. And why a "published" statistician would interestingly avoid any discussion of the t-test and resolving differences in means. And why a "published" statistician would have such a weak grasp of chi squared.</p><p></p><p>Now I'd be more than happy to think otherwise about you and statistics <em>if you provided me with any evidence to support that contention</em>.</p><p></p><p>Again, I'm only interested in data. You've provided none to the effect that you have any stats beyond freshman college, maybe only high school.</p><p> </p><p>I don't care who can understand what. Personally I think there's more people on here who <em>can</em> understand real science. And I wonder if that is why you avoid it.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Except, I <em>demonstrably DO </em>understand what I'm talking about scientifically.</strong></p><p></p><p>And I've proven it with my posts. </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Prove it. Use statistics.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span>Ane here you go with your standard "flogging of your credentials". I've seen plenty of folks high up in the corporate structure who didn't spend more than a short period of time "in the lab". And I've seen brilliant scientists who never entered management.</p><p></p><p>But do, by all means, tell us all about your paycheck and your big position and how great you are. </p><p></p><p><strong>Anything but statistics in a discussion about data</strong>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And you won't. I've got nothing to prove about my point that requires anything be known about what my current job is. I'm a scientist. I've got a PhD (I've made it further along than you in academia, apparently). </p><p></p><p>That's why I post my numbers. They can be checked. And I cop to my errors.</p><p></p><p>If you need to know what my current position is rather than bother to check the math, then I think we know how much good your "tensor calc" class did you.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> Actually I'm not. In many, many many posts I've pointed out I might be in error. I always post my work <strong>so it can be checked by anyone</strong>. But so far all you do is say "it's wrong" but never prove that point.</p><p></p><p> Uh huh. Maybe that's why I've confessed repeatedly that I'm not a statistician and why I <strong>obsessively show all my work</strong>. So it can be checked. </p><p></p><p>Ummm, I'm pretty aware of how the statistics works and I'm learning more every day. Actually this "discussion" while not intellectually stimulating <em>from your end</em> has provided me with much more opportunity to learn even more stats! (And for that I thank you.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is an interesting conjecture. How do you <em>know </em>this? How close to "identical" is sufficient? 1 degrees difference? 0?</p><p></p><p>Oh you are making me laugh right now. <strong>Everyone on here can see that this is not a true statement.</strong></p><p></p><p>The fact that <strong>you yourself have quoted my posts in which I've addressed the data proves <u>you </u>wrong. </strong></p><p> </p><p></p><p><strong>If you have any questions about my statistics, by all means <u>do the math and run the stats</u></strong>. That's why I've posted all my work.</p><p></p><p>Easy peasy. You don't need to know me, you don't need to know what I've published. You don't need anything. Unless of course it would be to make a personal statement. <strong>Anything but talking about the stats</strong>.</p><p></p><p> Maybe you and I will have 5th period algebra together!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thaumaturgy, post: 53033446, member: 169303"] I knew you'd trot that one out. But again, I have to wonder why a "published" statistician would avoid talking about statistics. And further why a "published" statistician would have such a weak understanding of the difference between a [B]95% confidence interval on the mean [/B]and [B]a standard deviation[/B]. And why a "published" statistician would interestingly avoid any discussion of the t-test and resolving differences in means. And why a "published" statistician would have such a weak grasp of chi squared. Now I'd be more than happy to think otherwise about you and statistics [I]if you provided me with any evidence to support that contention[/I]. Again, I'm only interested in data. You've provided none to the effect that you have any stats beyond freshman college, maybe only high school. I don't care who can understand what. Personally I think there's more people on here who [I]can[/I] understand real science. And I wonder if that is why you avoid it. [B]Except, I [I]demonstrably DO [/I]understand what I'm talking about scientifically.[/B] And I've proven it with my posts. [SIZE=3]Prove it. Use statistics. [/SIZE]Ane here you go with your standard "flogging of your credentials". I've seen plenty of folks high up in the corporate structure who didn't spend more than a short period of time "in the lab". And I've seen brilliant scientists who never entered management. But do, by all means, tell us all about your paycheck and your big position and how great you are. [B]Anything but statistics in a discussion about data[/B]. And you won't. I've got nothing to prove about my point that requires anything be known about what my current job is. I'm a scientist. I've got a PhD (I've made it further along than you in academia, apparently). That's why I post my numbers. They can be checked. And I cop to my errors. If you need to know what my current position is rather than bother to check the math, then I think we know how much good your "tensor calc" class did you. Actually I'm not. In many, many many posts I've pointed out I might be in error. I always post my work [B]so it can be checked by anyone[/B]. But so far all you do is say "it's wrong" but never prove that point. Uh huh. Maybe that's why I've confessed repeatedly that I'm not a statistician and why I [B]obsessively show all my work[/B]. So it can be checked. Ummm, I'm pretty aware of how the statistics works and I'm learning more every day. Actually this "discussion" while not intellectually stimulating [I]from your end[/I] has provided me with much more opportunity to learn even more stats! (And for that I thank you.) This is an interesting conjecture. How do you [I]know [/I]this? How close to "identical" is sufficient? 1 degrees difference? 0? Oh you are making me laugh right now. [B]Everyone on here can see that this is not a true statement.[/B] The fact that [B]you yourself have quoted my posts in which I've addressed the data proves [U]you [/U]wrong. [/B] [B]If you have any questions about my statistics, by all means [U]do the math and run the stats[/U][/B]. That's why I've posted all my work. Easy peasy. You don't need to know me, you don't need to know what I've published. You don't need anything. Unless of course it would be to make a personal statement. [B]Anything but talking about the stats[/B]. Maybe you and I will have 5th period algebra together! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Holocene Deniers
Top
Bottom