--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > ><snip> > > > > I was NOT arguing that the project showed anything > > hopeful. I don't believe that even if the ME exists, > > it could ever be demonstrated scientifically. My > > point was that Peter declared the methodology flawed > > *without knowing anything about the methodology*. > > > > And now you've joined him. > > You are simply wrong. We know there are problems > with the methodology.
No, we don't know enough about the methodology to say that. > I mentioned the lack of control of confounding variables You didn't mention any variables, first, and you can't say whether they were controlled for because what was posted here didn't discuss controls. For all you know, there were all kinds of controls. You made the absurd suggestion that because the test was announced in advance, everybody would be on their best behavior during the demonstration and (presumably) on their worst during the control period. You speculated that the police department might have put more police on the street during the demonstration to get a good result, without taking into account that police would be very unlikely to want this kind of approach to succeed. And for all you know, the study design may have required that no extra police be put on the street. What was posted here said nothing about that either way. > and the problems with the low crime rate. Yes, that's already been stipulated. > Any student who designed a study consistent with the > presented facts would get an F. I am sure any > scientists here would agree. No teachers or scientists who wanted to be fair and honest would do so, because they wouldn't have enough information. > > > Ruth said: If that is the case they should have known > > > that going in and thus the design was flawed for that > > > reason alone. > > > > > > Any number of things could have occurred to confound > > > the results. > > > > Judy said: Which is why I don't think a scientific > > demonstration is possible, no matter how sound the > > study design. > > > Huh? I thought you just said that we don't know anything > about the methodology and then you quote my complaints > about the methodology. Right. No contradiction there, sorry to disappoint. > The point is that the study design was not sound. No, we don't know enough about the study design to say that. > > > Ruth said: No conclusions can be drawn about anything, > > > > Judy said: Including whether the study design had any flaws. > > I can't believe you said this. You acknowledged there are > flaws. The only flaw I acknowledged was the small sample size, which everybody stipulated from the beginning. There may well have been other flaws, but neither of us can tell that from what was reported. > Are you just baiting me into a discussion? Hmm, you went on to say, "I was curious as to what you would say and how you would say it." Oooopsie. Who was baiting whom, again? > > Ruth said: not even as a pilot study worthy of further research. > > > It doesn't even rise to the level of being inconclusive. > > > > Judy said: Not sure that's even possible. Bit of derisive > > hyperbole based on facts not in evidence. > > The derision is deserved and is based solely on the > facts reported. As I said, facts not in evidence. You haven't cited *one* reported fact about the study design as a flaw, except that the study was announced in advance. Oddly enough, the initial ME studies were *criticized* because they hadn't been announced in advance. Subsequent studies were announced in advance specifically to address this criticism.
