On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Mike Marchywka <marchy...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I can probably find more "negative" ones if you are interested LOL :) > I was hoping to find another interesting technical conversation > to which I could contribute a few thoughts but subjective matters > do come up with statistical analysis and confirmation bias, rationalization, > the "power of positive thinking", believing in your data when you > should be testing it, is often the biggest problem to getting > accurate perspective especially with post hoc analysis questions > as often come up here. Look at some ongoing discussions about scientific > literature and you find all kinds of problems with failure to publish negative > results, including clinical drug trials. The power of "positive" thinking, > seeing what you want to see, wastes a lot of other people's time. You only > need to spend > a few days trying to replicate "positive" results, or just integrate > them into your understanding of a complex system like a living organism, > or buy a few hyped securities to understand how bug this problem really is.
I realize Ulysses was riddled with elaborate enigmas and subtle references (though Bert and Ravi must have hated the ending), so I tried to examine this paragraph from multiple angles, but I keep coming back to, "Huh?" > > I personally > question the utility of the post you cite but I often post things > in a hurry and make stupid statements myself ( and I don't let money > change that LOL). You can only type "see the posting guidelines" so > many times. Punctuation problems can make things hard to read etc. > I really wouldn't take it that "negatively" whatever that means. ______________________________________________ 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.