Post by George ConklinPost by PatI suppose that much of what I say/think/do doesn't agree with "the
liturature". That doesn't bother me ... mostly because of my distain
for authority and my feeling that most published research is bunk.
Here's an interesting article on it.
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band88/b88-4.html
This opens up quite a few interesting questions, starting with this
Most published research in bunk.
This is published research.
Does that mean "this is bunk". If not, then isn't the hypothosis
wrong?
I guess you will gladly sign up for any quack medicine some traveling
salesman pushes, since it is not peer-reviewed and you can't read statistics
anyway. I hope you don't imbibe too much poison.
George, I hate to tell you this, but YOU are the personification of
EVERYTHING that is wrong with our educational system. You are what is
screwing up America.
There you are, sitting in the middle of G*d knows where and spoutin of
half-cocked idea, misinterpreting what you read, jumping to
unsupported conclusions and saying things like "you can't read
statistics" about someone who you know very little about. Guess what,
I can read statistics it's just that I believe that college professor
such as you lie in order to make your points. Yes, George, I believe
that people like you manipulate data in order to make their points.
If you don't think it's fairly easy to manipulate data, then you'd
better go get yourself a new line of work -- because you've started to
believe your own lies.
I also know that statistics are estimates, not actual numbers. I also
know that there are confidence intervals. I also know that with
polling and other data, they never end the sentence with "accurate to
within 3%, 95% of the time"; which means, George, that it ain't
accurate 5% of the time. I also know George, that people lie when
they talk to pollsters. I also know George, that voting results are
sometime very different than what the vote is. Finally I know that
numbers and figures need interpretation -- they don't mean anything in
a void. You seem to have forgotten that.
If you believe all published information, then you must believe that
all drugs are "safe and effective". They have been through "rigorous
trials" to show that people don't get hurt taking them. If you
believe all published information, you must believe we have had a
President named Dewey. Hey, that's what the polling said.
If you believe all published articles, then Newton and Einstein are
wrong. That's what the articles back in "the day" said.
If YOU believed in published article, you'd provide me the ONE example
I have been waiting for. You know, the one that proves you're not
just full of hot air.
Finally, George, here is your paradox. Here is the one thing that you
cannot make sense in your little red brick world: If you read the
article, you'd see it shows how your precious articles are pretty much
shams. The article appears in a journal. So the article can't be a
sham, it appeared in a journal. But if it's not a sham, then journal
articles, including that one, are shams. So your entire little world
comes crashing down.
Finally, George, I think that article might have hit home to you as
you edit your third-rate journal so that you can publish only things
that you agree with -- and more importantly only people who agree with
you. It isn't an independed journal, it is a groupthink. That's that
the article represented and frankly I believe it in most cases. You
would never allow an article to be published if you disagreed with it
because it would cause your small, shallow little world to cave in
around you.
Two final questions for you, George. First, does it scare you to lie
in bed at night and think of how narrow minded you are and that the
fact you you've been so complacent for so long has sucked all of the
original thought out of your brain. Second, where's my example?
Still waiting. After you provide that, we can talk further.