On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did > it. Three standard deviations is statistically significant. The funding > might show bias if you can document it. Maybe. Since you can't seem to read > the sentences in this study, I am afraid I can't accept that as fact on > your say-so and even if you prove it, you still have three standard > deviations. The study, the n=90 and n=28 I am talking about here, simply > does not say what you say it does. >
The same three or for people did a test with an MRI three times. Not different people, not different observers. I don't car how many times they claim to replicate the same results. Until someone else finds a backer to confirm the results are legit it's just a biased study. Remember the Climate gate emails were about peer reviewed studies. After all that the study results that are hyped to mean something they do not. The report, if you read it, and I've posted clips, claim that the results found mean nothing other than more research is needed. I guess they got the publicity they needed but if someone does waste their time and money debunking a study that's obviously biased they will have their asses covered. > And I never said it meant that anyone is smarter. Go look at the link that > Maureen sent you. Reading comprehension. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:346972 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
