|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.251.236.4
In Reply to: RE: try to stay on topic Pat posted by Analog Scott on July 22, 2010 at 12:47:59
You tried to support your thesis by referring to internet discussions of a particular experiment. However, those discussions brought up rational criticisms of the way the experiment was done. Your examples are red herrings, since they do not seem to illustrate whatever point you want to make.
Moreover, you did not in fact analyze those discussions, any more than you supported your assertions about how some of those whom you call objectivists proceed.
It is possible you may be right about some objectivists, but you really have done nothing to show this. You just assert your belief on the matter.
If you wanted to discuss meta-analysis, then the article is a good starting point. You would have been better to stick with that rather than engage in unsupported attacks. However, as Tony Lauck has pointed out, the article on meta-analysis is somewhat flawed. For example, just picking out criteria in advance as to what studies to include is not sufficient, as one must know enough about the field to pick relevant criteria.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Follow Ups:
That being meta-analysis. Nothing in your post addresses meta-analysis. review that and get back to me.
"Your examples are red herrings, since they do not seem to illustrate whatever point you want to make."
So you don't know what point I am trying to make yet you claim my examples don't illustrate this point that is unknown to you? I hope even you can see the irony in that.
"Moreover, you did not in fact analyze those discussions, any more than you supported your assertions about how some of those whom you call objectivists proceed."
Well gosh Pat, if you understood the article on meta-analysis you would understand that there was no reason to analyze those discussions. the mere fact that they can only be found with undesired positive results is the point that is so well described in the article on meta-analysis. Again I suggest you read that article and get back to me when you understand it. Here is the part that basically explains it all. "Again, it is important that you determine your criteria for weeding out flawed papers in advance. You might think that it would be a good idea to scrutinize each paper for specific methodological errors, rather than working from a check-list. However, there is a snag with that. It has been shown that people, including scientists, are much better at spotting methodological flaws in papers the results of which don't fit their preconceptions. This would result in unconscious cherry-picking if you looked for unique flaws in each paper." now if you really can't understand this very well written excerpt from a very well writen article on meta-analysis then...well it's just over your head. sorry.
You then pick something out of it and tell us that most of what was in your original post is irrelevant.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Anything to avoid dealing with my points eh?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: