I didn't expect much agreement with my posting, and I'll just comment on two points that Roper raises, interspersed with his posting below:
----- Original Message ----- From: "James J. Roper, Consultor - Tradutor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: curriculum question > Every really good paper published in Ecology and > many other ecological journals required the statistics that was included > to make their point. True, but that doesn't justify the statistics. I've taken a cynical approach to this, on occasion when my colleagues have asked if I can suggest statistical methods to analyse the data I usually find that the conclusions are obvious just from looking at the data - so I discuss the conclusions with them, and then once we know the result they find it easy to come up with enough statistical filler to get the paper past the referees. > Bill goes on to contradict himself when he says: > > "In terrestrial work where > sampling tends to be easier and one can lay out quadrats on foot, etc., > statistical methods can be very useful." It's not really a contradiction. I pointed out that there are exceptions, and my criticism of the use of statistics was not categorical. Moderation in debate is not always a vice, no matter what Barry Goldwater said. Bill Silvert
