Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:01:56 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Please be careful if you must include attributions.
A recent submission had to be rejected because a comment was attributed
to Allen. He was merely was passing on someone's else's anonymous
comment and Allen is not the actual source and may have no opinion so it
would be unfair to attribute it to him. So that post cannot be approved.
Also, everyone, please keep posts short and sweet with one or two major
points.
Long posts are often not read very well past the first few paragraphs
and then we get posts based on misunderstandings.
If you have a lot to say, and want it read, it is best to make several
posts.
For focus, the CDC report topic is being used as a prominent example to
consider whether the analysis and conclusions are valid. Would other
equally valid methods output similar results? Is the analysis far higher
quality than the underlying data thus making any conclusions moot?
And, secondly, or maybe primarily, is the data quality is good enough to
analyze or if this report is simply a sophisticated case of GIGO.
We had a thread about perfect logic can reach unsubstantiated or wrong
conclusions because it was based on bad data or assumptions. We have
also talked in the past about what are presented as high precision
results generated from low precision data.
We must remember that CDC has withdrawn reports and even reversed on
occasion, and never forget that correlation does imply (prove?) causation.
Although this is a somewhat theoretical exercise, BEE-L still is about
bees and we are hoping to see some practical bee-related questions and
answers, especially now that Spring is almost upon us in the Northern
Hemisphere and the Fall in the South.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|