--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > > > > Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset > > > available to > > > other researchers to test the hypothesis via "their" > > > approach to model > > > specification and selection. If a suboptimal > > > specification were chosen > > > by the original researchers, because one or two > > > paramenters shined, > > > but others sucked, this "illusion" can be uncovered > > > by indepedendent > > > analysis and comparision of the results of different > > > model > > > specifications -- and the full spectrum of the > > > relevant parameters and > > > diagnostics associated with them. Or it may be found > > > that alternative > > > model specifications, strong on all levels, produces > > > a different > > > conclusion than the original research. This may > > > indicates something > > > important is missing in one or both models, and more > > > analysis is > > > necessary. > > > > And in good science this discourse goes back and forth > > with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against > > stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really > > good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note, > > if you follow the topics in scientific journal > > articles it is amusing how rival "camps" all but call > > each other assholes in their publcations) > > Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its > > ME research looked at because they know it is not > > robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea > > of random noise that can only be seen if you look at > > it in a very particular way. > > > > Yes. > > Its amusing how some hold that publication in a peer-reviewed journal > is the end-all and be-all of research. Its really an initial screening > for obvious errors. And depending on the status of the journal, the > degree and depth of review by peers may vary substantially from > journal to journal. Regardless, publication is the beginning of the > process, not the end. Its when the real peer review happens: a wider > audience reads the paper, sends comments and issues to "letters to the > editor", and often quite a tossle of view proceeds. Which strengthens > subsequent analysis. > > A second level of substantiation of a pulished article is does it > generate enough interest so that more original research is conducted > in the topic area. And is the analysis and methodology strong enough > in the original publication to generate funding for the additional > research. > > Since the publication of ME research, it has not, to my knowledge, > generated any non-TMO reasreach or funding. That speaks to the > strength and credibility of the original research. >
Please. The PEAR research is far more well-documented than the ME research but no-one takes it seriously either. The findings are too far outside the paradigm to be attractive to "serious" researchers. In a strange sense, it's like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorm: it proves nothing about anything else and only a handful of people are interested in slogging through it. ------------------------ 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/
