Ben, you present qualitative arguments, including your statistics. You have not presented any correlative statistics to support your thesis. Have you looked at ANOVA or Chi Square analyses? Your universe of 4 events is also extremely small to use for statistical certainty. What are your error calculations? I don't necessarily think you are incorrect, just that you actually do not present statistical calculations to support your thesis. Calculating odds is for gambling. Correlating events with a large enough population is statistics.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Ben Fishler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear Lin,The purpose of this email is to present a paper entitled "Large Impacts & Contemporaneous Antipodal Mantle Plumes: A Statistical Justification for Cause and Effect." This paper is attached in PDF form.Statistics has its limitations, but powerful statistical evidence can go a long way toward establishing a new way to look at reality.In many ways, what I am trying to do is to create a way to look at large impacts and their consequences in a different way ... to see reality through a different lens.The purpose of the attached page is to provide the statistical justification for using this different lens. The next email will provide a geologically sound mechanism for understanding how the process works.Again, I am always looking for comments.Regards,Ben Fishler
John Atwell Rasmussen, Ph.D., AJP
Rasmussen Gems and Jewelry LLC
"A Time to Stop Living at Work; A Time to Start Working at Living."