Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
... That is why I am not totally convinced that my original analysis of
data (b=2 +/- 20%) [I assume you meant "n"] was really wrong. Perhaps
this stupid black box is not so stupid after all. There is no doubt that
the data on v and a are of "lower quality that the data on d". That is
why we have 20%. And I would yield easilly if somebody insisted that 20%
is too optimistic and 30% is better.
But 1000% (b=0.2 --> 2) or 250% (from b=2 --> 5) is too much.
What else can I say? I do not think that the question, "how bad these
data are ?", has been definitely answered.
The data are not as good as we would like them to be but how can they be
so bad?