On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:00:17 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:01:27 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded.

I am talking about your hypothesis that "data that didn't agree with
the findings was discarded".

God help you, if you have nothing else to base this on, than what is
clearly stated in the paper, that outliers in raw data were removed
from datasets before variance homogenity of data was evaluated
in residual plots. Whatever you may think of removal of outliers at
this particular stage in the statistical analysis, it obviously does
not and cannot constitute the authors discarding of data that doesn't
agree with the findings. There are no findings at this stage, just a
mass of raw values, unfitted to any model, untested for any
significant differences between them.


You have no idea when the data was discarded.

Come, the statistical analysis section in the paper clearly
describes the series of steps taken in the analysis, in the
order they were taken. How can anyone read that section with
comprehension and escape with no idea when outliers were
removed from raw data?

It may have been when it was found to be inconvenient in
the statistical calculations. snip

And, what is the relation, if any, between this hypothesis,
and your original hypothesis that "data that didn't
agree with the findings was discarded"?

I mean, are you just re-expressing that original hypothesis
in a fuzzy low-key manner, or are you referring to some
inconvenience of having a gross outlier in a residual plot?