TIm, thanks for replying to my questions. I really value your insights in areas of statistics (small sample sizes, agricultural statistics) that are unique.
The use of one method or technique to check the other was not one I had thought of. The idea that if one technique, correctly applied, could yield results different from the other technique, and that this could lead to insight into the assumptions of a problem that might be in error, is a powerful idea. Thank you for that. Thanks, again, for your contribution to my questions. -Kevin On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 17:12 +0000, Ebert,Timothy Aaron wrote: > (adding slightly to Gregg's answer) > Why do professionals use both? Computer intensive methods (bootstrap, > randomization, jackknife) are data hungry. They do not work well if I > have a sample size of 4. One could argue that the traditional methods > also have trouble, but one could also think of the traditional > approach as assuming unobserved values. Assuming that the true > distribution is represented by my 4 observations then ... > Computer intensive approaches have not been readily available > until the invention of widely available faster computers. There is a > large body of information and long experience with the traditional > methods in all scientific disciplines. If you are unfamiliar with > these approaches, then you may not fully understand that key paper > published 30 years ago. > We like to think we have "the answer" but there are times where > the answer we get depends on how we ask the question. The different > tests ask the same question in different ways. Does the answer for > your data change depending on what approach is used? If so, then what > assumption or which test is problematic and why? > > Tim ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide https://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
