[R] The nature of evidence (was Re: Urgently needed Exercisesolutions related to PracticalData)

Mon Oct 5 10:07:01 CEST 2009

You are right, Patrick, there is no evidence that he is - as much as there
is no evidence that he is not. There is no evidence that he is in
Switzerland; there is no evidence that he is in Computer Science; and there
is no evidence that he is in fact "Mahesh." It seems to me we are now
redeclaring zero evidence for A to likely evidence for B by engaging in a
mixture of unqualified psychological profiling, speculation, and still,
discipline-based contempt.  And from all this we conclude that it is about
50 % likely that he is an MBA student. - Really? I still find this strange
for a group that is "obsessed" with valid inference and small alpha errors.
I prefer to stick with Descartes: "It is even useful to assume the dubious
as false to find the more clearly that which is very certain and easily
recognizable." And as such your story - even though possible - is still not
more than one out of many possible stories. But since I am probably biased
in the other direction, may be we can get covername "Mahesh" to send us a
private email what he is really doing.

Daniel

-------------------------
cuncta stricte discussurus
-------------------------

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Patrick Connolly [mailto:p_connolly at slingshot.co.nz] 
Gesendet: Monday, October 05, 2009 1:56 AM
An: Daniel Malter
Cc: 'David Winsemius'; r-help at r-project.org
Betreff: [R] The nature of evidence (was Re: [R] Urgently needed
Exercisesolutions related to PracticalData)

On Sat, 03-Oct-2009 at 11:35PM -0400, Daniel Malter wrote:

|> This person has probably mistaken "expelsior" for "excelsior." 
|> 
|> However, be that as it may, I am personally annoyed by your 
|> statement, David, in which you indicate that you believe this to be 
|> an MBA/business school problem, especially since the delinquent 
|> clearly indicates in his post - for which YOU have provided the link 
|> - that he is a computer science student, and also because it is 
|> presented without any evidence (which is particularly ironic because 
|> this list is for helping with a program that analyzes "evidence").

In fairness to David, what is the evidence that the OP really *is* a
computer science student?  Something tells me not to believe a word coming
from the "evidence" Daniel uses.  The idea of an MBA student showing how
diverse his skills are by getting enough credits to pass a computer science
qualification is not that far-fetched.  Being able to wing an MBA-type job
with such a qualification would be somewhat easier than winging a computer
science job.

On balance, I'd say the evidence for David's postulate is at least as good
as it is for the null.

-- 
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.   
   ___    Patrick Connolly   
 {~._.~}                   Great minds discuss ideas    
 _( Y )_  	         Average minds discuss events 
(:_~*~_:)                  Small minds discuss people  
 (_)-(_)  	                      ..... Eleanor Roosevelt

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.