Re: [Leica] (Help... I've fallen and cant get up!)

[Dennis Painter <dwp@deltanet.com>]

Jim Brick wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks this stuff belongs somewhere else?
> 
> Jim

Hi Jim,

Nope it "belongs" in my trash can.  But good point, this has nothing to
do with my interests in Leica photography.  I doubt we are alone on this
thought.

Dennis


> 
> At 11:34 PM 7/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Eric Welch:
> >
> >Re:  1.  Statistical Significance and 2,  Control in examination of
> >photography and values.
> >
> >1.  We will not achieve statistical significance because we will knowingly
> >violate the assumptions of the parametric T-Test and F-Test (statistical
> >models) (e.g., assumption of random sampling is violated).   Statistical
> >significance is important here.  One may violate the assumptions of a
> >statistical model providing one is up front and declares openly what one is
> >doing.  Heuristic assessments and serendipidity are as imporant as scientific
> >methodology.  Statistics is a product of natural science.  My work embodies a
> >second science, a new science we call Value Science.  The co-play and
> counter-
> >play of the two forms Unified Science and so I work in a world of three
> >sciences.
> >
> >2.  Control Group:  College Students reflecting the normative value vision in
> >our culture.
> >
> >      (Note:  The valuemetric procedure I use is based on a formal theory of
> >value whose hypotheses have been validated empirically by me over the years.
> >This is not a psychological test procedure, and its construction follows none
> >of the criteria of test construction promoted by psychology or psychiatry.
>  It
> >is a new approach to values researach and goes beyond the behavioral
> sciences:
> >See:  Edwards and Davis, Editors,  "Forms of Value and Valuation"; University
> >Press of America, 1991. )
> >
> >Leon
> >LP6@aol.com
> >Axiology6@aol.com
> >