Basic rule of science is when a scientist speaks about something outside their own field, their opinion is worth as much as any nonscientist who is ignorant of the same thing,.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Other scientists...are they neuroscientists? Or just scientists in another > field who are probably conservative and disagree with it for the same > reasons you do rather than actually having looked a the data and commenting > from a position of expertise? If an astrophysicist says something about a > star and a biologist says he disagrees with it...I am probably going to side > with the astrophysicist. If another astrophysicist says something, then > that makes a world of difference. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:31 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel? > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter. > > It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it's > biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending it without > knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you Larry's twin. This is > it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous just because you don't like > people that disagree with you. > > >> Assuming you looked and it mentions this article. More likely it's a >> meta-analysis for methodology for whatever he was looking at when he >> wrote it, which is not to say that the remarks in methodology may not >> apply to the University research.... would have to compare the two and >> I probably won't. >> >> To me it's another journal article. If you think they never contradict >> each other, i dunno what to tell you. I am not sure, assuming he is >> even talking about the article Larry posted, whether the thingies he >> says where counted wrong were the bits I was asking Larry about, the >> leave one out analysis times a thousand, which I think deals with >> scoring the MRIs, or whether it's in the questionnaire. > > > Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a journal > article because it doesn't suit you? > I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or > understand has two. > But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here it is > and you're trying your darndest to deny it. > > >> If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am >> doing stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he > explains it. >> If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, >> whereas you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. > > You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as you > attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's fine. But you > belittle me with how successful you were at make the fool of me. That's the > only thing driving this discussion, your personal attacks. Realize that and > you have no reason to hate me and we can talk like adults. Never happen. > > >> And none of the above changes the basic inequalities >> >> journal article>blog post > > Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites > Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites > > . > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347072 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
