On 15 Jul 2010 at 15:59, Mike Palij wrote:
>
> Since Stephen hasn't bothered to explain what his point(s)
> were, we're left to speculating and playing mindreaders.
I wasn't planning on replying to this, but an interesting
hypothesis unexpectedly popped up. I've been away from my
computer as much as I've been at it lately, and the messages
have been piling up. I always think I have time for a short note
on something of interest, but I forget that it may well generate a
bunch of replies which need more time which I don't have (yes,
even in retirement).
My caution on the natural experiment was based on my
assumption that the weakness of this quasi-experimental
before-after design is well-known, and it's accepted as clearly
inferior to a true randomized study. And I did refer to Sakinofsky
as providing specific points of concern.
So why did Mike take a shot at me for lack of clarity? I think it
may be because in an earlier post of his ("Can computers help
education?" July 11, he uncritically mentioned the use of natural
experiments. Perhaps he thought my later comment was
intended to take a dig at him, and this was tit for tat. I did not
intend this, as I have only just now discovered his earlier post
mentioning natural experiments.
Notwithstanding, I have to say that I too have noticed that he
often puts an unnecessary unpleasant edge to his posts
directed at individuals rather than issues. Maybe he could work
on that.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University
e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3609
or send a blank email to
leave-3609-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
