3 ms·
I'm not saying anyone is stupid. Rigorous statistical thinking is not particularly linked to intelligence. What I'm saying is: without rigorous statistical noti
by fchollet 12y ago
I'm not saying anyone is stupid. Rigorous statistical thinking is not particularly linked to intelligence. What I'm saying is: without rigorous statistical notions, good experimental science is impossible, and not nearly enough scientists have the required statistics and math background. Hence the banality of bad science among some experimental fields.
Maybe you are a software developer (I don't know). In that case, you might have noticed that quite a few software developers around you are, well, incompetent at what they do. The same goes for managers and every other demanding profession. Scientists are no exception. In fact, to be a good scientist is actually much more difficult than to master a trade.
- BugBrother 12y agoDespite three comments I see no motivation for your claim that the paper is obviously utter garbage. Edit: Removed the rest. Not needed. Bye. Edit 2: A general discussion of the quality of papers (which everyone with some time at U ought to know about) and a discussion of me personally is as typical a "changing the subject" strategy as it can be.