Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [GPG] Stats: for "M" and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    I can understand that the authors of the study may well wish to wait till the whole study is published before releasing specific details, but it would be
    Message 1 of 34 , May 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I can understand that the authors of the study
      may well wish to wait till the whole study is published
      before releasing specific details, but it would
      be helpful to know one or two things about the
      statistical method, without prejudicing release of
      specific details.

      a) Were the data partitioned?
      In other words were each of the "blocks" divided
      into samples, so that "within group" variance could
      be compared with "between group" variance?

      b) If the tests were based on "vocabulary" did this
      focus on high frequency function words or did it
      include low frequency "content words"? (The latter
      have the disadvantages of being subject related,
      and also of having very low counts per thousand words.)

      c) Did the method include some kind of significance test
      for a p value or some equivalent?

      d) What precautions were taken against the kinds
      of bias that methods using prior variable selection
      (e.g. Stepdisc) might suffer?

      I hope this does not sound too suspicious, it is really
      only an attempt to encourage a little information
      which might give some indication of the robustness
      of the method. Many NT studies have been based
      on vocabulary counts which have very slight statistical
      underpinning, and it would be good if there were more
      which were in line with literary stats elsewhere.

      David M.




      ---------
      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


      --
      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!

        Dave:

        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        Ron:

        >
        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.