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>