Mattheus,
You are showing some misunderstanding of the use of statistics. A few
observations.
1. If your results are so glaringly obvious, then the question was
probably not very interesting, or a logical consequence of the methods.
2. Questions that are not so simple need statistics to discover the
probability of something happening when it is not obligatory that it happen.
> statistical tests when you can simply draw a plot and
> your conclusion comes?
3. A plot can mislead.
> I need to learn that populations must
> be normal, they must be homoscedastic, there are at
> least 3 models for ANOVA, there is something out there
> with the name of ANCOVA, and I have no single idea if
> this is useful for me or not.
4. The assumptions of ANOVA are not as rigid as you imply. ANCOVA
combines regression with ANOVA, often a very useful tool.
> I admit that in some cases statistical tests do help to understand the
> obtained results, but the path to dominate and understood what is behind is
> long, and not easy.
>
5. I tell my students that intuition is wrong, until we have a solid
grasp of the probabilities involved. Humans tend to bias their
perspectives. So, statistics helps us to avoid our own
tendentiousness. The tools, like any tools, require practice and use to
master them.
> Therefore, I follow with my faith.
6. There is no place in science for faith.
> I use my software and it gives me the indexes that will allow me or not to do
> my parametric tests, and then I apply the tests,only to confirm something
> that I knew weeks ago.
7. If you are getting indexes, then you probably should not be doing
parametric tests.... And, as I said, if it is that simple, it probably
wasn't very interesting scientifically.
> Or I learn that my observation is not good because I could not achieve enough
> power with my test. And then I have the alternative of doing a similar test,
> but I don't like the idea of learning another test, and then I
> discover that I need to do other kinds of preliminary tests... wow, maybe you
> get the point.
>
8. The point is, apparently, that you do not understand statistics, nor
their usefulness. And, you want to blame statistics for that.
> I know this will lead to nothing, but I would like to say: isn't much better
> only do the right plots and
> look at the data?
9. One should always plot data - that does not mean you will always
recognize the patterns. And, how do you plot correctly? What if there
are multiple interactions? Only plots that are derived from or guided
by the correct analyses will tell you what you want to know. So, you
need to know the stats.
> A pit that such ideas are not more widespread. They would save some of my
> time.
>
10. You will save time by studying the correct methods of analysis for
your area, and becoming familiar with them. Or collaborate with someone
who has a knack for the things you don't care to know about.
--
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
James J. Roper
Ecologia e Dinâmicas Populacionais
de Vertebrados Terrestres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Telefone: 55 41 33857249
celular: 55 41 99870543
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Econciência - Consultoria e Traduções <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://people.sightspeed.com/link/vnfmnadoam/> My status
<skype:jjroper?call>
