Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Re: [Geology2] Statistical Justification for Antipodal Volcanism

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 <benfishler@yahoo.com> 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.


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."


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


No comments:

Post a Comment