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-requ...@r-project.org<mailto:r-help-requ...@r-project.org>> <r-help-requ...@r-project.org<mailto:r-help-requ...@r-project.org>> wrote: Message: 54 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:56:34 -0800 From: Bert Gunter <gunter.ber...@gene.com<mailto:gunter.ber...@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...@mail.gmail.com<mailto:aanlktinvwp0bm864aedpr=hb-r=e_=b7zgftwdbxn...@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]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
