Re:Camels and humps: a retraction [pdf]
by hyperpape on Sunday July 20, 2014 @12:33PM
(#8060751)
You're right that this article is a bit hard to read in places. But as for your "reading between the lines", give me some reason to believe you're not just projecting your pre-existing assumptions onto this article. What did he actually say that let you read between the lines.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Camels and humps: a retraction [pdf]
by QuantumChaos on Sunday July 20, 2014 @03:39PM
(#8061265)
The reasons were in my post:
He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in my comment.
And he makes reference to nature vs nurture, which is completely irrelevant to the actual issue, and only makes sense in the context of a political apology.
The whole "our statisticians didn't find my claims supported by the evidence" didn't seem relevant?
Re:Camels and humps: a retraction [pdf]
by QuantumChaos on Sunday July 20, 2014 @07:33PM
(#8061908)
where does he say that specifically? He refers to statisticians helping to do further analysis on the data, but I don't see where they showed that the main claim (that the test is predictive of success in the course) is refuted by statisticians.