Changes

:::If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting.  He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques.  Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them.  If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.

:::If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting.  He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques.  Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them.  If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.

:::If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample. size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates.  If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters.  You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals.  However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers.  

:::If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates.  If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters.  You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals.  However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers.  

:::That is the situation we have here.  Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly.  This say no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper.  The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product.  To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!

:::That is the situation we have here.  Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly.  This says no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper.  The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product.  To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!

:::Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted.  Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves.  Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct.  The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not:

:::Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted.  Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves.  Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct.  The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not intended:

::::1. to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence)  

::::1. to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence)