Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Not from you...
Peer-reviewed papers are "evidence", which this is not - it’s one Prof of Stats views, not backed up by any other papers/research.
From the Bristol Uni web-page
I guess it's 'evidence' if it says what you want it to say... |
To be fair, there is a continuum of credibility between red-top conspiracy wailing and a peer reviewed paper, and an academic paper placed on a pre-press server like Arxiv is nearer the latter end of that continuum than the former. Random nut jobs don't get access to such services, and the fact that it's there means it is worth consideration. "one Prof of Stats' views" is unduly dismissive.