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

[Rolf Turner]

On 9/10/2008, at 12:34 AM, Julia S. wrote:

>
> 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.

This is mind-bogglingly well expressed.  I wish I could write like that.
Congratulations.

	cheers,

		Rolf Turner

######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}