jackknifeh wrote:Unless you can describe the material in a manner the reader will enjoy reading and comprehend, the article is useless even though it may be more accurate.
If you want very simple experiments, I can easily describe them and the results, here is a very simple test to rank the blade steels in the knives for edge retention :
-take each knife
-roll six normal dice
-add up the dice
The higher the score the better the edge retention of the knife.
--
Now this is where you might jump in and say "Wait, but that doesn't actually measure edge retention, it is just a made up list of numbers."
Exactly, and therefore you should not draw any conclusions from that list.
The article described has the same problem. The guy might have well just rolled dice and ranked the steels and he would have had an equally valid list of edge retention rankings. The reason this is the case is because the noise level is higher than the significance and thus what is produced is a random list.
If you want to see this in Calc (spreadsheet), as it isn't obvious then just do this :
-create in column A a list from 1 to 10
-in column B type in this forumla "A10*2+RAND()*100"
If you plot that then it will look random, but every number in column B is twice A, so it should look linear right? But it doesn't look like anything because while there is an underlying correlation it is masked by the random deviation.
There is actual work required to know something, if you don't do the work then you don't know, you are just making things up and you might as well save time and just roll the dice. If you want me to ignore this and pretend you can draw conclusions without doing the work, that isn't going to happen.
As an aside, I write the way I write because there are people who want to understand so they ask, if you don't want to understand, and all you want are the results then you can skip everything and just jump to the conclusions at the end.
However if you just want to read conclusions which are completely unfounded or claims made that are simply flat our wrong (though wonderfully simple) in that case I would suggest someone else, its a big world, plenty of room for everyone.