posted
Generally "We're doing it wrong in the way that's standard in our field" is not a good defense against the charge "You're doing it wrong". Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Generally "We're doing it wrong in the way that's standard in our field" is not a good defense against the charge "You're doing it wrong".
That's not the argument. If you don't understand the difference, you aren't much of a scientist.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, ok, less snark. If the problem is population variability, the answer isn't to take a worse P-bound; quite the opposite! Rather you should do the same analysis with a non-Gaussian (thick-tailed) distribution. Instead the life sciences accept that one in twenty results will be due to chance - even on the assumption of normal distribution! (In other words, that's probably an underestimate.) With the amount of stuff that gets published, that is hundreds of results every year. This is not good.
Another point is this: It seems I cannot discuss statistics with you without being called a bad scientist. I would really appreciate if you would stop that. People who have to compartmentalise their lives just to do ordinary work should not throw stones.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least I hope you compartmentalise. I would hate to think you apply the same standards to your work and your church.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, at least I hope you compartmentalise. I would hate to think you apply the same standards to your work and your church.
I hate to think you might apply the same approach to your wife as you do to your work.
I approach my work, my religion and my relationships with dedication, sincerity and rigor. But I'm smart enough to know what tools to use in which situations. A chain saw is a terrific tool, but not one I'm going to use to repair a watch. If that's compartmentalization, then I'm all for compartmentalization.
I don't use my religion ot figure out the age of rocks and I don't use science to determine what is moral. That's wisdom and maturity, not compartmentalization.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am once again reminded of why I generally avoid joining any religious discussion where you are involved. Its like arguing with a two year old.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't speak for all religious people, but I would expect prayer by a disinterest stranger on my behalf without my knowledge to be far less effective than the prayers I offer and the prayers offered by my loved ones who also extend their love and support. I can't come up with any way to separate that from a placebo effect in a double blind study which is why I made the original quip.
I understand. I just don't think the implications are something someone devoted to a religious life would wish to pursue. The placebo effect occurs in a variety of contexts besides the religious. You wouldn't, I think, want to say that sugar pills had any kind of religious significance. But, objectively speaking, what makes that placebo effect different than the placebo effect in intercessory prayer?
Along these lines, I understand the placebo effect to be a pretty well measured phenomenon. It seems like you could compare different studies measuring the placebo effect to see if the effect of intercessory prayer was significantly greater.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
