[R] Inference for R Spam

[Mark Difford]

Rolf Turner wrote:

>> What is your point, exactly?

My point is that you are making some very broad generalizations on the basis
of your own (perhaps limited) experience and knowledge of the history of
science. You say:

"My impression --- and I could be wrong --- is that physicists understanding
of randomness is very narrow and constrained."

Well most informed scientist would not consider Einstein, de Broglie, and
Schrödinger, together with a host of other physicists, of being "guilty" of
such limited understanding of the randomness of things.

You also criticize physicists for having an approach to measurement error
that "...may be appropriate in the applications with which they are
concerned...," i.e. that is appropriate to their field study. So what is, or
was, your point with all the fluff, stuff, and nonsense taken out?

Regards, Mark.


Rolf Turner-3 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/03/2009, at 10:38 AM, Mark Difford wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Rolf,
>>
>>>> ... From the beginner's point of view it is useful to think of  
>>>> random
>>>> variables ...
>>
>> Who, exactly, is the beginner ?
> 
> 	The OP --- well, not the OP, but the person who introduced this
> 	line of discussion to this thread, by saying that sports scores
> 	were not/could not be statistics --- seemed to be pretty much at
> 	the neophyte level.
> 
> 	More generally there seem to be lots of subscribers to this list
> 	who not sophisticated mathematical statisticians and would benefit
> 	more from the ``random quantity that you are going to observe'' pov
> 	than from the ``measurable function on a probability space'' pov.
> 
>> And was not Sir R. A. Fisher pretty arrogant
>> and fractious ?
> 
> 	Dunno.  Never met him! :-)
> 
>> He also was highly dismissive of Sir Richard Doll's
>> conclusion that smoking caused cancer (himself being a smoker).  
>> Does that
>> make him a bad statistician,
> 
> 	I don't ***think*** so.
> 
>> or all statisticians "bad" or arrogant ?
> 
> 	I can think of at least one counter-example, that being of course
> 	my very good self! :-)
> 
> 	What is your point, exactly?
> 
> 	I asserted that in my experience physicists tend to be arrogant
> 	(and dismissive and condescending) in respect of statistics.
> 	That *is* my experience.  I haven't done a carefully designed
> 	survey, but.
> 
> 	Many (most?) statisticians have a similar impression of the  
> attitudes of
> 	pure mathematicians.  That is *not* my experience.
> 
> 	I certainly never said that no statisticians are arrogant; some
> 	of them may well be.  I never met one, but. :-)
> 
> 		cheers,
> 
> 			Rolf Turner
> 
> ######################################################################
> Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at 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.
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Inference-for-R-Spam-tp22181352p22367339.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.