--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], > "markmeredith2002" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > But he hasn't seen the study. It used highly > > > > sopisticated statistical methodology, and I > don't > > > > think it's even possible to speculate about > what > > > > was done on that level of sophistication. > > > > > > Well, its not magic. Based on a survey of > available data, > > > constraints on such and all, I can speculate > with some degree of > > > reasonablness as to what issues they faced, and > how they > > > approached the problems methodologically. I have > been there. > > > > ExxonMobil scientists use highly sophisticated > statistical > > methodology to prove global warming doesn't exist, > creationists use > > it to prove evolution is a hoax. Highly > sophisticated statistical > > methodology is useless within a bad study design. > > > > > My real pt - you have to be skeptical of studies > which (1) support > > the marketing of products made by the organization > which is paying > > the scientists to do the studies, and (2) support > the particular > > religious worldview of the scientists conducting > the study. In the > > case of the M-effect studies, you have both at > work. > > I completely agree on all counts. I was not using > "sophisticated" to mean "unassailable." It may > even be the case that the more sophisticated the > methodology, the more opportunities to do some > sophisticated fudging that would only become evident > if you did an exhaustive examination of everything > that went into and came out of the computer. > > But by the same token, the more sophisticated the > methodology, if you don't have access to all the > details, the less likely a *speculation* on what the > researchers were doing (honestly or otherwise) is to > be on target. > > In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a > position even to guess at flaws in the study or to > say the results didn't reflect the reality unless he > knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers > used. He has to be able to see the published study > before he can make a relevant evaluation. > > I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own > method, run all the numbers, get different results, > and on that basis, without knowing what methodology > they were using, say there was something wrong with > their results. Does someone have a link for the published study so we can all look at the methodolgy section? > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------ 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/
