current Biology Here's the link again http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Eric Roberts < ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I don't remember the name of the publication without going back to the > Smithsonian Article, but it was a Biology publication. It was <something> > Biology...I remember the name began with an A... > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > there's a good question. Look around, maybe on about us, and see if they > > talk about their peer review process. They won't have posted the actual > > review though I don't think. You could also run the study title and the > > author names through Google Scholar to see if anyone has tried to > reproduce > > this, is another thought. > > > > Have a nice day. > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I dismissed it because it didn't state what Larry claimed it did, the > > > funding was totally biased and the results only work if people don't > > > change their mind. I would have to believe half of us are conservative > > > and the other half liberal but we can switch sides at will. If it was > > > a legitimate study I might give it more of a chance. As for peer > > > reviewed, I know how that process works and it's not pretty. Plus > > > you're still reviewing what you're told by folks who appear to have an > > > agenda. > > > > > > Speaking of peer reviews, where do I find them? I could see any links > > > to actually reviews. > > > > > > . > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Besides, you cannot simply dismiss something because it does not give > > > > you a complete answer. The study said that there are other things to > > > > consider, but suggests that brain structure, at whatever level of > > > > development, seems to be enough of a contributing factor that > > > > predictions can be made within an acceptable margin of error. > > > > > > > Yes the study was inconclusive as far as offering concrete proof and > > > > yes, it was suggested that more research is required, but the reason > > > > more research is required is because the results support the > hypothesis > > > > well above random occurrence. > > > > > > > > Now, if the study itself is flawed, then that is one thing and the > next > > > > person to investigate can call the original experimenters on their > BS, > > > > but the results were valid enough to at least make it to peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347026 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
