--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <<Unlikely to be the other factors that were considered, of course. The > problem with research like this is that you can never prove that you > allowed for ALL possible factors. This is why scientists prefer > labratories to the "real world.">>> > > Incorrect. > And with all due respect, one can, to a large extent, eradicate, or > reduce to insignificant, the possibility that an effect/result is due > to other possible factors within a statistical analytical study. > > For example: Quote: > "Hagelin's study used time series analysis to rule out a long list of > alternative explanations, including weather variables, seasonal > effects, changes in police surveillance, and trends and cyclical > patterns inherent in the crime data." > http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html > > OffWorld. >
Assuming that this is the case, that still doesn't rule out some OTHER factor that wasn't considered, like I said... I'm not saying anything about the validity of the findings, or how the test was conducted, only that "real world" events aren't very popular with scientists because they are hard to control. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
