On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:50:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:6rrskvgp0ca2h5ro939d6hlcc4adopfar6@4ax.com...

..> Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper:
"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"
That's a pretty serious accusation.

I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without
listing them or specifying them number. <snip hurricane of handwaving

Gordon, you said that "data that didn't agree with the findings was
discarded". This is a serious allegation against the authors of the
paper. What basis do you have for making it?

Every paper that I have been associated with or read in my field that

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bilsve$94l$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could
be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still
never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

what a maroon


Jim,

Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He
could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data
in
the paper. Showing his work of course.

Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what
you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information
given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put
the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to
make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis
of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust
that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a
proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this
cannot be called in question, only that it must be there
a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted.

So, lest you forget, you've made a serious allegation in relation
to this paper, namely that:

"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"

All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the
paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in
the
paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics.

Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in
tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates
per treatment and sampling date.

However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data
points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been
discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you
should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data
points are missing. :-)

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there.

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded. If

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:hakvkvg5ka9oam4rdiin0g3llhnkih9kts@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

All the data points used in the study except the discarded
ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate
the statistics.

Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in
tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates
per treatment and sampling date.

However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data
points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been
discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you
should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data
points are missing. :-)

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there.

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:01:27 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:hakvkvg5ka9oam4rdiin0g3llhnkih9kts@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

All the data points used in the study except the discarded
ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate
the statistics.

Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in
tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates
per treatment and sampling date.

However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data
points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been
discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you
should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data
points are missing. :-)

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there.

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded.

I am talking about your hypothesis that "data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded".

God help you, if you have nothing else to base this on, than what is
clearly stated in the paper, that outliers in raw data were removed
from datasets before variance homogenity of data was evaluated
in residual plots. Whatever you may think of removal of outliers at
this particular stage in the statistical analysis, it obviously does
not and cannot constitute the authors discarding of data that doesn't
agree with the findings. There are no findings at this stage, just a
mass of raw values, unfitted to any model, untested for any
significant differences between them.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:1q61lvkpd7ijsshe4rv1irf2pn8d36lmag@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:01:27 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded.

I am talking about your hypothesis that "data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded".

God help you, if you have nothing else to base this on, than what is
clearly stated in the paper, that outliers in raw data were removed
from datasets before variance homogenity of data was evaluated
in residual plots. Whatever you may think of removal of outliers at
this particular stage in the statistical analysis, it obviously does
not and cannot constitute the authors discarding of data that doesn't
agree with the findings. There are no findings at this stage, just a
mass of raw values, unfitted to any model, untested for any
significant differences between them.


You have no idea when the data was discarded.

It may have been when it was found to be inconvenient in
the statistical calculations. <snip

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:00:17 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:1q61lvkpd7ijsshe4rv1irf2pn8d36lmag@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:01:27 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are
discarded.

I am talking about your hypothesis that "data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded".

God help you, if you have nothing else to base this on, than what is
clearly stated in the paper, that outliers in raw data were removed
from datasets before variance homogenity of data was evaluated
in residual plots. Whatever you may think of removal of outliers at
this particular stage in the statistical analysis, it obviously does
not and cannot constitute the authors discarding of data that doesn't
agree with the findings. There are no findings at this stage, just a
mass of raw values, unfitted to any model, untested for any
significant differences between them.


You have no idea when the data was discarded.

Come, the statistical analysis section in the paper clearly
describes the series of steps taken in the analysis, in the
order they were taken. How can anyone read that section with
comprehension and escape with no idea when outliers were
removed from raw data?

It may have been when it was found to be inconvenient in
the statistical calculations. <snip

And, what is the relation, if any, between this hypothesis,
and your original hypothesis that "data that didn't
agree with the findings was discarded"?

I mean, are you just re-expressing that original hypothesis
in a fuzzy low-key manner, or are you referring to some
inconvenience of having a gross outlier in a residual plot?

When the findings are used in a fraudulent manner before the work that the

When the findings are used in a fraudulent manner before the work that the
paper is written from is preformed am strongly suspicious of the paper and
all connect to it.

When the statistical claims they make don't agree with
the data they publish I am more cynical about it.

I went to the effort ot have experts look at the paper and they came to the
same conclusions

and you can call OSU like I did and find out what Ms.
Ingram's relationship with them <snip

If you can make that pig of a paper sing by making the statistics work
I will continue the discussion.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:45:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

When the findings are used in a fraudulent manner before the work that
the
paper is written from is preformed am strongly suspicious of the paper
and
all connect to it.

But, that's highly circumstantial, is it not, if you want to prove
abominable discarding of data? :-)

However, let's see your evidence for the claim that findings of
the paper were used, before the work that the paper is written
from was performed.

When the statistical claims they make don't agree with
the data they publish I am more cynical about it.

You must be more specific, or noone will know what you are
critisising. Which statistical claims don't agree with
which data? If you can't answer that, you do not
have a critique of substance worth relating to.

I went to the effort ot have experts look at the paper and they came to
the
same conclusions

Understand that unidentified experts making unidentified conclusions
that happens to agree with whatever you say just doesn't cut it.

and you can call OSU like I did and find out what Ms.
Ingram's relationship with them <snip

Ms. Inghams affiliation is irrelevant to the question, if data
points was discarded that did not agree with the findings in
that paper.

If you can make that pig of a paper sing by making the statistics work
I will continue the discussion.

That's very kind of you. However don't you think it is about time
you coughed up some evidence for your claim that data that did not
agree with findings was discarded? How many times have you been
asked for that now. Five, seven times?

I have no idea what the effect of the discarded data did to the study did.

I have no idea what the effect of the discarded data did to the study did.
That's the point.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:k0d5lvc0o58mlfafq13uopo6p7r8csq10s@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:45:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

If you can make that pig of a paper sing by making the statistics work
I will continue the discussion.

That's very kind of you. However don't you think it is about time
you coughed up some evidence for your claim that data that did not
agree with findings was discarded? How many times have you been
asked for that now. Five, seven times?

I have no idea what the effect of the discarded data did to the study did.
That's the point.

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:k0d5lvc0o58mlfafq13uopo6p7r8csq10s@4ax.com...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:45:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

When the findings are used in a fraudulent manner before
the work that the paper is written from is preformed am
strongly suspicious of the paper and all connect to it.

..>let's see your evidence for the claim that findings of
the paper were used, before the work that the paper is written
from was performed.

In sci.agriculture Gordon Couger <gcouger@nospamprovalue.net> wrote:

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:k0d5lvc0o58mlfafq13uopo6p7r8csq10s@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:45:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

If you can make that pig of a paper sing by making the statistics work
I will continue the discussion.

That's very kind of you. However don't you think it is about time
you coughed up some evidence for your claim that data that did not
agree with findings was discarded? How many times have you been
asked for that now. Five, seven times?

I have no idea what the effect of the discarded data did to the study did.
That's the point.

No you need to be quite good at the subject to deal properly with
outliers. I am thinking that sometimes people do not eliminate them when
they should be, and others do but don't acknowledge it.

Imagine you represent a conservative govt applying as little as possible
health funding to a village of 100 people of mainly low income, based on
whether they can pay for it themselves or not. When calculating the
average will you include the income of the one multi-millionaire in the
village? That would make the average income rather higher, so you can fund
less. But the other 99 people would have no ability to pay, consequently.
The place would become a real eyesore.

Then if you were looking for how much the village could potentially donate
to a cause would the high earner still be an outlier?

If you were recording times for a cross country race would you include
ones where runners had obviously taken a short cut or joined the race some
way through it because they were rather briefer than really possible?
(Memories of school cross-countries). Well you might if you were trying to
catch cheats, or runners mistaken about the route.

On 1 Sep 2003 11:52:50 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
No you need to be quite good at the subject to deal properly with
outliers. I am thinking that sometimes people do not eliminate them when
they should be, and others do but don't acknowledge it.

Imagine you represent a conservative govt applying as little as possible
health funding to a village of 100 people of mainly low income, based on
whether they can pay for it themselves or not. When calculating the
average will you include the income of the one multi-millionaire in the
village? That would make the average income rather higher, so you can fund
less. But the other 99 people would have no ability to pay, consequently.
The place would become a real eyesore.

But that's not an outlier problem, Brian. Indeed, there's not much of
a statistical problem in it

you know the income of each and every individual in it, you know their
average income. The average is the average. It is just not a very good
descriptor for what the politicians want to describe.

Then if you were looking for how much the village could potentially donate
to a cause would the high earner still be an outlier?

Yes. In that situation average income might be a more suitable
descriptor. But again, this is not an outlier problem. The high earner
is known to be part of the population studied, so the data point
representing his income can never be considered an outlier.

If you were recording times for a cross country race would you include
ones where runners had obviously taken a short cut or joined the race some
way through it because they were rather briefer than really possible?
(Memories of school cross-countries). Well you might if you were trying to
catch cheats, or runners mistaken about the route.

That's more like it. If you observe from the recorded racing times
that all racers completed the race within a time range of 3-7 hours,
except one racer -- who has been recorded as completing it in 7
minutes -- that does raise the question if the racing time of this
runner should not be consider an outlier.