Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 9 Mar 2013 08:00:02 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
Deep Thought |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Allen, I'm no statistician. I simply divide each mite count by the
> starting count.
Thanks Randy. I appreciate the fact that you spell out your methods so
that we can either accept or debate them.
In this case, I have no comment. I simply wanted to know what that
word, "normalize", might conceal.
It seems to me that some researchers hide behind a smokescreen of such
words, and when I asked you that the question, a researcher friend
replied irreverently off-list with one word, "massage", so I am not
alone in my skepticism.
As far as I am concerned, anything goes and long as the data and methods
are presented transparently.
I don't think there is any one right method and that is why I commented
on (bullied????)the attempt at standardization of bee research earlier.
Standardization can stifle innovation and furthermore, standardization
can be a stalking horse for groups intent on monopolizing funding
sources and excluding novel approaches. I think we saw that with the
CCD campaign. Money and credits went to a select group with one thesis
and were denied to groups with other ideas.
Now that the CCD illusion has been milked dry, I note that we have a
new-and-improved 4-letter acronym for a new 'syndrome" and we are off to
the funding races again.
Anyhow, I see I am drifting away from the topic.
Thanks for being there, and saying it like it is.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|