I feel this is a little uncouth of me to crow on about, and I don't expect anyone to believe me on the internet, but I actually used statistical probably quite a bit in my PhD thesis work:
http://www.5colorcontrol.com/Plots/Taylor's Thesis-Full Draft Working.pdf
Now, I was studying physics, not statistics, but I did read quite a few papers on the subject (just a bit in chapter 7.2). And, I've no done anything on any subject since my December graduation. So, I'm not claiming I'm an expert, but I will say I have more than a passing familiarity with the practical applications of the subject matter.
That being said, when I was talking about epistemology and statistics and whatnot, I was--most assuredly--just waving my hands. I was not trying to write a peer review paper or even an email to my adviser.
I saw someone claiming that scientists made hard knowledge claims, and that it was theists that were more willing to accept inadequacy in understanding. I disagreed and made what I thought was a well-sounding wishy-washy hand-waving post about uncertainty in science. I through in a few wiki links out of habit more than anything else, and a couple of science quotes about uncertainty.
So, I'm not trying to backpedal and say what I was said was somehow correct in its usage of scientific terms or that I used statistical analysis properly to justify my points.
I didn't.
I was just trying to make a nice sounding post to point out that scientists don't claim to know much of anything, and certainly don't claim to have real "knowledge." That is--also--not to say that all theists claim to have a monopoly on the truth either. Nor is it to say that you guys shouldn't continue to correct my usage so we can all learn a little something.
You should.
All I am trying to say in this post is that I'm a little miffed after the 7 long years I put into my graduate work people seem to think I'm a simpleton when it comes to this kinda thing because of a few careless hand-waving posts I made on a writing website, when the overall
point of those posts were
NOT incorrect. So, call me a simpleton when it comes to epistemology(it's only a hobby), call me a bad writer(a learning disability cases me to write like a 5th grader), call me careless with my statistical lingo(only read that stuff on my own) but
please don't say something like:
"Perhaps an example from actual scientific work would help Greyman to get a handle on how he thinks epistemology and statistical ranges work in practice. "
to me.
It will ruffle my feathers.
In Short:
I was just trying to up my post count to 50, since that seems to be the magic number.