On Jun 3, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Dear Dean,
I am afraid that you have fundamentally misrepresented (and
perhaps misapprehend) my objection. It is easy to dismiss your
critics as incomprehending, fuzzy-thinking humanists. I am not
here, however, to defend qualitative methods against quantitative
ones. (I respect both, when properly executed.) Nor am I ignorant
of the quantitative methods you use. (For what it's worth, my MA
thesis was a factor analytic study. My PhD dissertation involved
my writing computational simulations of logical reasoning. The
course I teach most often is statistics.) None of that is at
issue. My objection is that the numbers you take as your basic
data are not, IMHO, extracted through a method reliable enough for
your statistical conclusions to be credible. It is not that I
think Galileo's methods to have nothing to offer human
knowledge... even to the study history. It is, rather, that I do
not find your approach to approximates Galileo's closely enough to
engender the same level of confidence in the results.
In this universe of uncertainties, there is one thing for sure:
Chris is an outstanding scholar, and does have to list his
credentials. The circumstances that led him to do so were
unfortunate, out of place in a list such as this one.
Peter
Peter Harzem, B.Sc.(Lond.), Ph.D.(Wales)
Hudson Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849-5214
USA
Phone: +334 844-6482
Fax: +334 844-4447
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
