--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to > > share their raw > > > > data with the University of Iowa? > > > > > > As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem > > study. The DC study > > > crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime > > Statistics, a book > > > published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was > > also from public > > > sources. > > > > Actually, the data for the Jerusalem study were > > also publicly available. What Markovsky wanted > > was not the raw data but the data from their > > statistical analysis. He wanted to see all their > > calculations, in other words--what went into their > > study that was not reported in the published paper. > > In any published paper the methodology and the type of > statistical analysis along with the rational for that > particular analysis used is discussed in the paper.
But not the reams and reams of data produced by the statistical analysis. (That was noted by the editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution in his comment published with the paper.) My > understanding is that Markovsky wanted to see the raw > data that was "crunched" by that analysis. The raw data, again, were publicly available. He wanted to see the data *after* it had been crunched. I view > Markovsky attitude toward the ME has healthy > skepticism considering its radical nature Healthy, objective skepticism is fine. Markovsky was also biased against the whole enterprise. That's obvious from his paper on the Jerusalem study, but I could quote from many posts of his to alt.m.t that make it crystal clear his intention from the start was to debunk it. You might find it of interest to read a lengthy discussion that took place on alt.m.t in which he maintained the TM researchers were unethical because they didn't obtain informed consent from the populations they were trying to affect before commencing the intervention. and MIU's > refusal to share raw data was based more on the > weakness of the ME than on any bias on his part. They > were concerned that the raw data could be crunched to > show no ME. And their concern was correct. I'm sure the raw data *could* be crunched to show no ME, especially if that was what one was determined to find. That's surely what Markovsky wanted to do, as I suggested. In that respect their concern *was* correct, but not necessarily because they were afraid the ME was weak. Also on alt.m.t, TMer Kurt Arbuckle, who has some expertise in statistics, posted some analyses that indicated Markovsky either didn't understand or was misrepresenting the TM researchers' statistical methodology. I'm in no position to evaluate the accuracy of Kurt's thesis, but he's a pretty straightforward guy. Markovsky, I'm afraid, is not. ------------------------ 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/
