I think Sam needs to learn about single subject experimental design and how powerful such designs are. For those interested they can start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_design
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > it *says* that complex thought involves more areas of the brain than that, > so the results are a bit puzzling. But I know -- CFSAMMYDOESNTLIKEIT > > Unless I hear a better reason than that, as far as I am concerned it's an > unexplained fact. Interesting maybe. I've already told you how to prove > it's biased if you want to, made several suggestions in fact. if you cant > be bothered then be quiet already. You don't like it you don't like it you > don't like it. Oh well. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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:346978 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
