DrW, truer words were never spoken. I often have older graduate students (lawyers, politicians, bankers, historians, etc.) who have had established and successful careers, but who are, nonetheless, somewhat new to certain aspects of the technicalities of statistical analysis. The smart ones get themselves into a project group with at least one savvy millennial (or an old woman like me
)with the math and stats background, and they LISTEN and LEARN. They contribute their best, but they never stop the math geeks from contributing their best.Those groups succeed.
But when I see an older student insisting that their way works and yes of course they understand probability, but there's NO WAY their common sense is wrong, then I know I have a group that's going to have trouble.
I'm sensing that the Elder Dale might fit that category.
Regarding problems with certain Elders, this morning our team is putting the finishing touches on two documents that will be used to publicly and professionally refute a paper and a blog post written by an overzealous elder environmentalist who claims to be a Ph.D. engineer - and whose published conclusions and claims are demonstrably dead wrong.
This old guy appears to be experienced but has clearly failed to keep up with the literature. As a consequence, he has made a fool of himself in public with these two publications. This would be of little interest to us except that his nonsense directly contradicts the existence of environmentally beneficial technology that we have invented, developed and are commercializing.
When our staff saw the offending blog post, they were concerned. When we saw the associated paper, we considered that clients or potential stakeholders may see his published nonsense and decide to act accordingly. Realizing that this author's misinformation and false claims could be in the literature for time and all eternity (or at least a few billion years), we decided to expend the effort to refute his sloppy work. We did so because we understand the damage that apparently credible but uninformed or misguided "professionals" can do to the reputation of emerging technologies. We needed to do what we could to prevent or minimize such damage.
The Interpreter should do no less. Like our other Ph.D. engineer friend on the internet, Dr. Bruce Dale has made a fool of himself. He should voluntarily withdraw the Interpreter paper.
Alternatively, if the Interpreter is truly the organ of scholarship that it claims to be, then it should be willing to publish a properly peer reviewed paper, authored by qualified and credentialled individual(s) who can set the record straight with regard to the false claims made by Dr. Dale.
As a faithful Mormon on the MAD Board has stated, sloppy work, falsehoods and misrepresentations, even if intended to help strengthen the faith of believers, do more harm than good in the long run.