All the studies were done by Geraint Rees. Same study, different people.
Maybe this is a vocabulary problem. See, the scans of one of each, sure, that has only anecdotal validity. It's still science, for certain meaning of "science", because you get journal articles about individual patients, but it's no more than suggestive. Please try to follow here, because that is not the study that Larry posted. THAT one was -- dammit don't want to look again -- something like a hundred people. But if the sample was truly random, it's sometime like confirmation. Larry, I am going to assume that you looked at that thing for statistical significance, right? Cause I understand the concept, but I would have to look up standard deviation and start from there, and Sammy here obviously doesn't have a clue or he'd be talking about it. > so how do you get "predetermined" from "see what the scientists had to > stay." I mean, really. How? > > Why did you not read this sentence: > IĀ decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > DON'T AGREE WITH ME and see what scientists had to say about it. - CF > I read it. You're offended by the idea that he thinks people who don't agree with him have something that is biologically wrong with him. We all understand that. But you're saying that a study of 100 people is invalid because somebody who didn't conduct it said something about a different set of activities, and the statistical significance of the results is irrelevant. And I am telling you that it can offend you until you are blue in the face, but it still won't make "see what the scientists had to say about it" mean "predetermined" results. Please tell me you're this stupid on purpose, because you're scaring me. I am not sure what to call your reasoning (?) here but it's definitely not logic. > > well yeah, it's always "possible" when it comes to science, Sam, because > > your data is only as good as your sample and your model. Duh. But that > > doesn't mean we stop doing it or can airily dismiss study results that > > don't please us. At least not without explaining why. > > Like it's possible to get out of it what you want > Well, I have to say, you're sure giving it a shot. > and claim conservatives can only think in black and white? Is that what > you got > out of it? No, Sam. That is not what I got out of it. > Predetermined outcome was there's a tiny weenie difference that we > could use to define the two different groups but we shouldn't because > that's not what the data tells us. That's not the usual meaning of predetermined, Sam. You might want to look these big words up before you use them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346942 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
