RE: [fw-wiz] Wired article on the scientific method
From: hermit921 (hermit921_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/08/04
- Previous message: Kevin Kadow: "[fw-wiz] "upgrade" for Gauntlet"
- Maybe in reply to: Tina Bird: "[fw-wiz] Wired article on the scientific method"
- Next in thread: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:39:26 -0700
Several decades ago in my first general statistics class, the prof
challenged us to find an article from a reputable scientific journal that
did not have a statistical error. I don't think we ever did.
hermit921
At 06:16 AM 9/2/2004, Melson, Paul wrote:
>Fascinating article. But in light of this thread, I ran across this
>line on the second page and had to laugh:
>
>"A recent study of work published in Nature and British Medical Journal,
>for example, found that 11 percent of papers had serious statistical
>errors."
>
>PaulM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Talk about good timing:
> >
><http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/rugg.html?pg=1&topic=rugg&topi
>c_set=>
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Kevin Kadow: "[fw-wiz] "upgrade" for Gauntlet"
- Maybe in reply to: Tina Bird: "[fw-wiz] Wired article on the scientific method"
- Next in thread: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
