R help - Jan 2011 - Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias, scientific validity

Folks:

The following has NOTHING (obvious) to do with R. But I believe that
all on this list would find it relevant and, I hope, informative. It
is LONG. I apologize in advance to those who feel I have wasted their
time.

 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

Best regards to all,

Bert

-- 
Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics

The next week's New Yorker has some decent rebuttal letters.  The case 
is hardly as clear-cut as the author would like to believe.

Carl

Bert, consider the short rebuttal offered by George Musser in Scientific
American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=in-praise-of-scientific-error-2010-12-20

Perhaps a more realistic assessment of the (acknowledged) problem.

Regards,
Alan Kelly
Trinity College Dublin

On 7 Jan 2011, at 11:00,
<r-help-request@r-project.org<mailto:r-help-request@r-project.org>>
<r-help-request@r-project.org<mailto:r-help-request@r-project.org>>
wrote:

Message: 54
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:56:34 -0800
From: Bert Gunter
<gunter.berton@gene.com<mailto:gunter.berton@gene.com>>
To: r-help@r-project.org<mailto:r-help@r-project.org>
Subject: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
       scientific validity
Message-ID:
      
<AANLkTinvwP0BM864aedpr=hb-r=E_=b7ZgftWdbxn-xx@mail.gmail.com<mailto:AANLkTinvwP0BM864aedpr=hb-r=E_=b7ZgftWdbxn-xx@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Folks:

The following has NOTHING (obvious) to do with R. But I believe that
all on this list would find it relevant and, I hope, informative. It
is LONG. I apologize in advance to those who feel I have wasted their
time.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

Best regards to all,

Bert

--
Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics




	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]