>> Well, writing on my rebuttal, I find myself being unable to explain in a >> few, easy to understand (and, at the same time, correct) sentences stating >> that it is not a good idea to report (most likely wrong) dfs and F >> statistics.
Without pretending to be able to discuss the details, may I nevertheless ask WHY one should assume that an "easy to understand (and, at the same time, correct)" answer to the question exists? For example, I would not begin to presume that an "easy to understand (and, at the same time, correct" answer exists for why an electron can simultaneously have the properties of a particle (photoelectric effect) and a wave (2 slit interference patterns)-- or to the question of "why is the 2nd law of thermodynamics equivalent to information loss?" -- or to how the Krebs cycle works or the nature of Benzene rings. It has never ceased to amaze me that many "casual" (in the sense of not having training at, say, the graduate statistics level)users of statistics automatically assume that all statistical principles are fundamentally "simple" and at least easily comprehensible at a conceptual level by someone with only minimal (or no!) background in the discipline. The extreme manifestation of this is the popular view of a statistician as someone who expertly compiles and tracks baseball records! While I would readily admit that there is much that we can and should do to make our discipline more accessible and useful, I am still offended by those whose attitude is, as appears to be the case here, 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 think we owe Doug Bates a little more respect than that! Cheers, Bert Gunter ______________________________________________ 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.
