funny I've always done it the other way, fit the curve to the data. In other words the data ought to drive your theories.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have no doubt that the data was presented to best make the argument. > I just don't think they are the only ones doing it. Universally in > this debate, researchers on both sides tend to draw the curve, then > plot the points. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> that said all the crud that the wing nuts are pissing and moaning >> about the raw data being edited is pure crap. There are a lot of >> artifacts in the data that have to be dealt with. This is quite >> acceptable in research. In my own EEG work we typically had to throw >> out about a quarter to half of an individual's data because of >> artifacts - i.e., head or boding moving, radio interference etc. So >> the fact that some climate data had to be discarded because of >> artifacts is not surprising. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308958 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
