that's true. It's more a study than 2 people. But really big studies are in the thousands. You can't call it definitely proven without a shadow of a doubt. However, if the sample was properly chosen, it doesn't matter, at least theoretically. I am not going to swear that randomization best practices were followed as I can't be hassled to go look up what I would need to look up for that, although I realize you can't prove it by this thread.
I just think that if it's in a peer-reviewed journal it gets a tentative, hmm, wonder why that is. I am sure that if someone made the effort they could probably find a number of ways to critique it, starting with where did they get their sample anyway? Just saying that it's not valid because of what someone else said about it, is not on the other hand a demonstration that the study is bullshit. If he had some sort of proof of a financial or political bias on the part of the researchers, that would be possibly respectable as an argument. But no. He's just offended. And because he's offended we are not supposed to talk about it. Fuck that. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at > > all for the crap you've been talking. > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: > > > > > > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat > > > you with experience > > > > > > . > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 > people > > > >> and 28 people. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd > > call > > > it > > > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same > > hypothesis. > > > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug > are a > > > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's methodology. > > > And, > > > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them may > > > have > > > > said in an interview... > > > > > > > > > > > >> PURE BS! > > > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they > > > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have > said > > > if > > > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but > let's > > > cut > > > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I > > > suppose > > > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or > you) > > > > seriously at this point. > > > > > > > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > > > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's > completely > > > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is > wrong > > > > with the science? > > > > > > > > > > > >> No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station > that > > > > > > > > some people took seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > different set of events. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Again if it was tied to anything right > > > >> leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science > > > >> can never be wrong. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is > > > > something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral > > > indignation > > > > at something said by someone that did not even participate-- > > > > then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a hypothesis > > > and a > > > > clinical study for fuck's sake > > > > > > > > > > > >> I decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > > > >> DON'T AGREE WITH ME. > > > >> > > > > > > > > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of > the > > > > selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're > offended. > > > I'm > > > > sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to say" > > > mean > > > > "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. > > > > > > > > > > > >> That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you > > > >> not pay attention? > > > >> > > > > > > > > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... > doing > > > > whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch > like > > > you > > > > that's all "wa wa wa the man said mean things about my beliefs" needs > > to > > > be > > > > called on his crap every so often and since I'm in the mood for it. > So, > > > are > > > > you actually saying that anyone who knows anyone who has ever said a > > rude > > > > thing about neo-cons is automatically incapable of objective science? > > No > > > > wait,`anyone who is testing a hypothesis that in other circumstances > > was > > > > tested by someone who knows someone who once said that someone who > > thinks > > > > like you do might possibly have his head up his ass... and you know > > what, > > > > anyone who thinks the way you do MUST have his head up his ass. Wow. > > > Well, > > > > my work here is done. Gawd knows how much science that little tirade > > > > invalidated not, of course, that you would believe it anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what > outcome > > > > > > > >> they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over > again. > > > >> > > > > > > > > expected outcome != predetermined outc > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:346953 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
