Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Obsession?

Obsession? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut – Vienna, Austria, 2016-03-06 15:45 (3762 d 14:12 ago) – Posting: # 16058
Views: 13,126

Dear Detlew,

I’m sick of some statisticians’ obsession with mathematical proofs.
The three-body problem in physics can’t be solved analytically. However, man landed on the moon and the New Horizons space probe reached Pluto. Same goes with the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics. Aircraft are designed by the finite element method (fortunately resulting in a much, much lower risk* than 0.05). If statisticians are so worried about numeric methods they should stop traveling – except by foot.

Biostatistician. One who has neither the intellect for mathematics
nor the commitment for medicine
but likes to dabble in both. Stephen Senn

In 2014: More than 3.3 billion passengers flew safely on 38.0 million flights. 73 accidents (12 fatals). 641 fatalities (risk 1.9·10^–7). 2014 was a bad year (MH 370 and MH 17).

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

The EMA’s BSWP’s opinon Helmut 2016-03-04 15:37
- The EMA’s BSWP’s opinon ElMaestro 2016-03-04 23:16
  - Control of the TIE (empiric via simulations vs. proof) Helmut 2016-03-05 15:17
    - To whom it may concern ElMaestro 2016-03-06 22:59
      - To whom it may concern d_labes 2016-03-07 11:41
- Opinon? d_labes 2016-03-06 13:31
  - Obsession?Helmut 2016-03-06 14:45
    - Obsession? DavidManteigas 2016-06-02 12:57
      - 0.0501 not acceptable Helmut 2016-06-02 13:30
        
        OT: Guernsey McPearson's Drug Development Dictionary d_labes 2016-06-02 14:44
        
        OT: Comparison Helmut 2016-06-02 15:59
        
        OT: Comparison d_labes 2016-06-02 16:42