[R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

[Julia S.]

Hm. 

Bert Gunter wrote:
> 
> that even the most technical
> aspects of the discipline can be made manifest to anyone with half a brain
> and a stat 101 course under their belt.
> 
> 
I don't think this is something I can use in a rebuttal. The reviewer may be
offended and reviewers are people one does not want to offend. 

In general, I disagree. This get a bit philosophical, but well.

I think there are some occasions where it is important to explain
complicated things in few, easy to understand sentences to laymen (even if
that means loss of preciseness). That has to be done (and was done in the
past) with the other examples you give (thermodynamics, Krebs cycle ect.)
fairly often, especially when politics are involved (think LHC, stem cells,
or, even the structure of the DNA). Even for very difficult topics this
needs to be done. 
I think our (maybe most challenging) duty as researchers paid by tax money
is also to explain our sometimes very complicated research to laymen in an
easy understandable manner. Albeit it is of course not your duty to explain
it to me on this list, if you are offended by my attitude. 

Isn't it the most normal thing to ask for an explanation when somebody
doesn't understand something? I've learned that asking is a good way of
learning new things. Sorry if that offended you.


Confused,

Julia



Cheers,

Julia
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/lme-and-lmer-df%27s-and-F-statistics-again-tp19835361p19877014.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.