NavList:

George apparently inspired this analysis by throwing down the gauntlet to Dave Walden with:

"D.Walden can reach no conclusions about potential errors in using the
Bennett tables for that purpose, until he has checked out enough predictions
to see what the resulting scatter amounts to (say, 10; at least 4, anyway).
His one-off "bull's eye" signifies no more than I would achieve if I scored
a bull's eye at my first throw at a dartboard. It would be a lucky accident;
no more than that. I predict that he will see an overall range of scatter of
3 to 4 minutes or so ...
So come on, D Walden, spend a bit more time with your tables, and let's see
what scatter you come up with."

Well, now we know something about that "scatter", it transpires.  What would seem appropriate now is a reaction from George, either to challenge the findings on some grounds (hopefully substantial) or to acknowledge that he was talking through his hat (once again) with his "prediction".  A prediction based on what, after all, apart from prejudice?

What seems disappointing, although consistent with George's past performance, is for George to now suddenly lose all interest in the topic.

This would, on the face on it, appear to be yet another example of intellectual dishonestly on George's part.  Doubly disappointing, since such shoddy behaviour tends to tarnish somewhat the esteem George is due for his prolific output of, often, apparently well researched, informative, and interesting posts on a host of topics.

Thanks to Dave Walden for accepting the challenge and putting in the time and effort involved in carrying out the analysis.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---