On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
Yeah, new...it's perfectly legitimate to "not count" an anomalous event like *that*! What are you *thinking*? If you bitch about something as miniscule as disregarding data because it doesn't fit the all-important expectations, why you could set a precedent. And that precedent could pose problems when it comes time to splice in several extra frames of someone at mid-hop to show the expected result of "hovering." And we all *know* how bad that would be for the fate of the world! People would think that hopping was all that was going on and not flock to these all-important courses. What are you *thinking*? You must be one of those "anti-TMers" we hear so much about here. :-) More seriously, I think new has made the point that one can "interpret" "science" to show anything one wants. That's one reason I've never been impressed by the "TM science." It is "belief-driven" as opposed to truth-driven. There is no desire to show what really happens, only what is *expected* to happen.
Interestingly much TMO research seems to use a "faux null hypothesis" -- probably because earlier critics lambasted them for their lack of a null hypothesis. New Morns astute observation just points out that this central flaw of TM, belief-based research, while they now do contain a "token" null hypotheses, are just that: tokens.
