All the author has proven is that there is an 18% chance that the data does not come from a Poisson distribution. This isn't right either. You've committed th

All the author has proven is that there is an 18% chance that the data does not come from a Poisson distribution. This isn't right either. You've committed the inverse fallacy [1]. The correct way to read that p-value is: "If the data came from a Poisson(2) process, it would be 18% likely to have deviations at least as different from poisson(2) as the observed data." The test gives no insight into the probability that the true distribution is Poisson or Poisson(2). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse