"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could
be
tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still
never
admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful

what a maroon


Jim,

Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He
could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data
in
the paper. Showing his work of course.

Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what
you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information
given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put
the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to
make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis
of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust
that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a
proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this
cannot be called in question, only that it must be there
a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted.

So, lest you forget, you've made a serious allegation in relation
to this paper, namely that:

"data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded"

All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the
paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics.

Gordon