I find the debate becomming more interesting. I've gained new respect for
Dale's sincerity--I was suspicious that stiring the SANET pot was part of
his job description.
My two bits worth needs prefacing: my philosophical stance is close to the
holistic view expressed so well by Douglas and Misha.
That said, I would be interested in why Dale sees that view as 'dualistic.'
Please start by defining what you mean by dualistic.
A second point--and not a trivial one IMO--refers to a part of the exchange
[from Douglas' post at 11 Jun 1998 17:37:17 -0600].
>> I have attached below the abstract of a paper that
>> summarizes my take on the toxicology. The devil is in the statistical
>> details. I am willing to go into that with you.
>I accept that point of view but am going to have to let someone else do the
>stats for now (I've got projects to get out the door), and in any case I think
>my case would be best made in a court of law - meaning I'd be most useful
>working at that level (activist), rather than by accumulating further
Here I take issue with the point of view that "The devil is in the statistical
details." You can't do statistics without some model in the
background...really, several layers of models starting with the basic view
of how the system works, then proceeding through the abstractions of
functional forms that are assumed to 'fit' the reality. You two are really
disagreeing on the question of how the system works--which is prior to
application of statistics, experimental design, whatever.
IMO [hope i'm using that correctly--it means 'Intra Mural Order' in Colorado
State U. jargon], Dale's offer of a critical and civil examination of
philosophical stance is right on the money (which is where the devil REALLY is).
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command