[R] Inference for R Spam

[Rolf Turner]

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}}