Mszlazak wrote:
>I don't know if your PhD automatically qualifies you as a good experimental
>scientists. Last I heard was that 95% of studies published in scientific peer
>reviewed journals were bad to uninterpretable.
>
>You probably meant to say that bias is a large and vast concept and "bias of
>ascertainment" is a specific type of bias.
>
>Instead of using the $0.50 phrase "bias of ascertainment", how about a $0.05
>rendition of what you think it means so any dumb hick like me knows what your
>talking about.
>
>But if it's what I suspect then it's a simple enough issue to deal with and has
>been dealt with in many ways for decades. Surveys and marketing research aren't
>recent inventions. They can get the goods on what populations will generalize
>to the target audience for the browsers release.
>
>
I haver replied to your post privately 9email), not in the modd for a
flame war. But i can send you a couple of reprints fo my publications in
"scientific peer reviewed journals" e.g. The Journal of Biological
Chemistry, Hormone and Endocrine Research, Journal of Human Genetics. I
never heard of that 95% figure you mentioned. Did you get that figure
from the 6PM news or the science section of your local newspaper?
