This week's edition of the CMS Times features a short piece by A.Rao,  where some points are made on the issue of correct statistical analysis of high-energy physics data.

...and people who like sausages, should not ask how they are made.

As a member of two large scientific collaborations (CDF and CMS), I enjoy the benefit of seeing lots of scientific publications that carry my name as an author being produced at weekly rates. This is however also a burden, since I at the very least must try to ensure that I like the way the results are produced. I.e., that I agree with the details of how these scientific measurements are made.

Update: I have modified the title of this post [originally: "Opera's Statistical Booboo"] and the text below (in places I marked accordingly) upon realizing, thanks to a very good point raised by a reader in the comments thread below, that the idealization I was making of the measurement described below made my conclusions too hasty. Read the text to the end if you want more detail.

A blog is by nature a place where things move on fast. Articles disappear beyond the horizon in the matter of a week or two, and only rarely get resuscitated by a later article linking them back from oblivion.

At Science 2.0 things are no better than in any other blog sites, with the aggravating feature that there is no "archive" button, nor a "random post" feature. Since I believe that many of my articles are not very connected to the specific time at which they have been written, I have in mind to reorganize the material somehow, when I have the time. However, this looks like a grievious task, since the number of posts I have written here is about 500.