On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A possible new example is the recent paper by Maurer et al (1999).
> They reported the startling finding that as little as one hour of
> patterned visual stimulation after the birth of a baby with cataracts
> improves vision, a result which received wide attention in the press.
> Yet the paper is sprinkled with one-tailed tests, without a single
> word of justification. I've complained to _Science_ in a
> letter-to-the-editor (don't hold your breath, though).
>
Complain, Stephen, complain.
One of my fears is that academic experimental psychologists have
split into two groups. One group is at the big name
universities, where they are expected to be an active
participant in the shaping of the field. (And, as Paul pointed
out, the contingencies are not always conducive to good
science.) The other group is at lesser-known schools (no names
mentioned), where a type of "on-looker" attitude sets in because
of the difficulty of finding time and resources to be active.
When you complain you help disabuse the notion that science only
happens in Boston, Palo Alto, and Toronto.
Ken
----------------------
Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Psychology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
