Talk:Response surface methodology
|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
There are no linked references in "Special Geometries" despite in-line citations. The are no references in the "Practical Considerations" section -- moreover, the caveat about statistical models seems unnecessary (otherwise it ought to be applied to all articles involving statistical methods), unless there is a specific controversy about the method -- in which case, this controversy should be discussed in further detail and referenced. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is indeed work to be done.
- However, I am satisfied that I have provided reliable references. The reader who has trouble finding Atkinson or Kiefer in the references needs help reading rather than in-line citations. The intelligent reader will pick up Atkinson et alia or Wu/etc. or Box/Draper ASAP.
- The field of RSM has a funny literature, because of the influence of George Box, who like his father in law liked to bash "mathematical statisticians", and issue homilies about the art of modeling. Box is such a great writer and lethal rhetorician that his followers have tended to parrot him, leading to stereotypical worries in American textbooks about models.
- (Most of this was said earlier, much better, and with a proper concern for truth by Charles Sanders Peirce. Nominalism is a parasite that continues to stunt British statistical "theory", which has a wildly subjectivist emphasis on "models" and a failure to discuss scientific progress.) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The second link goes to Gent University in Germany, I presume, and is non-functional: "The requested page could not be found." I'm not sure it was the best possibility anyway. I'll try to find another. What do you think? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)