On 5/03/2009, at 3:06 PM, David Winsemius wrote:
I mostly agree with you, Rolf (and Gunter). I would challenge your
joint use of the term "scientists". My quibble arises not regarding
biomedical practitioners (who may be irredeemable as a group) but
rather regarding physicists. At least in that domain, I believe those
domain experts are at least as likely, and possibly more so, to
understand issues relating to randomness as are statisticians.
Randomness has been theoretically embedded in the domain for the last
90 years or so.
My impression --- and I could be wrong --- is that physicists
understanding
of randomness is very narrow and constrained. They tend to think
along the
lines of chaotic dynamical systems (although perhaps not consciously;
and they
may not explicitly express themselves in this way). They also tend
to think
exclusively in terms of measurement error as the source of
variability. Which
may be appropriate in the applications with which they are concerned,
but is
pretty limited. Also they're a rather arrogant bunch. E.g.
Rutherford (???):
``If I need statistics to analyze my data I need more data.''
cheers,
Rolf Turner
######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
______________________________________________
[email protected] 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.
