>Yeah, the tiles of his textbooks are very scientific oriented (sarcasm).
>I find this one particularly amusing: /Dogs that Know When Their Owners
>are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals/
>
Thank you for providing a first hand account of bias. Is this an example of
"bias of ascertainment"?
Did you even bother to read the book?
>I have no problem if you believe that and with all honesty I can respect
>those beliefs, but please don't try to pass them for real science.
I never said I did or didn't believe in these powers. So why is doing
experiments with dogs not the business of science?
Also, why don't you give us your rendition of what "real science" is beyond
"science follows a method..." My grandmother "follows a method" when she's
bakes apple pies as well. Furthermore, what's this "method" suppose to do? At
least, what do you believe it accomplishes?
>Science follows a method, if the scientific method cannot be applied to
>the subject at hand it doesn't mean the results are not valid, but it
>means that results cannot be validated scientifically. There are science
>subjects that do not follow the method either due to their descriptive
>nature (e.g. anatomy, for the most part).
>
Don't forget Astronomy, Evolutionary Biology, Epidemiology, etc... According to
you all unscientific?
>I bet peer review journals have not accepted articles like these before.
Actually, they have. You're wandering into subject matters that I strongly
doubt that you have any familiarity with ... beyond the 6pm news:-)
>Plenty of bias (not of the ascertainement kind) from an author who gets
>his/her papers rejected by their peers. Try again with a more reputable
>scientific source.
The work's fine, it's your bias against it that's the problem.
I have read articles from guys with advanced science
>degrees from top universities in which they deny AIDS is caused by HIV
>(no empirical evidence provided), other articles that Vitamin C is good
>for avoiding colds (disproven a million times), that chicken soup is
>good for getting rid of a cold (eaasily explained in other ways), that
>the world was created ~6000 years ago as described in the
>judeo/christian Bible and so forth (the dinosaur fossils are the
>evicdence for the universal diluvium), Kirlian aura, etc etc
And what's that got to do with the things I've mentioned, browser features or
the "price of rice". You're wandering.
>
>Is funny, you told me before that i should be involved or know about
>empirical research before talking about empirical design and when i
>mention some of my qualifications in the field you reject them. I am
>sure you know a lot of empirical research/analysis.
I haven't rejected them yet, I haven't seen them.
>Email me your postal address and I will be more than pleased to sent you
>a reprint of a couple of papers ... after all, that is the STANDARD way
>of requesting publication reprints. But if you have access to a library
>that holds scientific journals I can also send you the bibliographic
>information and you can pull them out yourself.
>
Thanks. E-mail the bibliography.
>***************************
>I am not denying that usability studies can be useful. My point was and
>is that what was suggested as criteria for releasing Moz 1.0 was absurd,
>. releasing the browser only after a percentage of people commit to
>switch browsers. What will be the cutoff line: 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% (as
>suggested)? Over what period of time? Open source development, beta
>feedback and these newsgroups are providing PLENTY of feedback from many
>more users than can be achieved by a limited sample from a
>company/organization where people are already using or are used to
>another browser. BTW, that is how projects from closed development
>environments are usually tested. Netscape has usability studies, I am
>sure of that, otherwise they wouldn't have a QA (quality assurance)
>department. The idea of having a webpage where people can fill out a
>form or questionnaire might help to collect data from beta/nightly
>testers might be a good one, no objections to that. ;-)
>
>.
>
>
OK, thanks for finally agreeing with me.
