FallingAlice said:
I might also ask whether or not you're qualified to sit on a peer review panel of these researchers. If so, then your attitude is suitable. If not, then you make my bullshit meter go off. Or should I just believe you because, very vaguely, you tell me that you made a buck or two determining statistical relevance.
Or should I just believe and acquiesce to you and aloyious because well...you're you and you know best.
You ask about credentials? What are yours to refute my claim of statistical insignificance? At least I can talk the talk (or of course, I could be just be an imposter who's done a little Googling under your strict assumptions). It is intuitively obvious to me that the good doctor's research is not robust enough to draw real conclusions (nor does he BTW; he only suggests linkages. Heck, I've been at conferences where researchers have suggested linkages between the price of tea in China and (fill in the blank), which at first glance
appear to have merit). "Intuitively obvious" where I studied and researched meant, "very simply understood without further examination necessary due to a thorough understanding of the underlying scientific concepts". If you don't see how the study is "statistically insignificant", then I'm sorry, but I'm not the one without the proper credentials. And I've already given one free lesson (albeit crude) on the subject....you'll just have to learn the rest of it yourself,
or judge by my 1800 posts whether I'm full of BS .... or not, and to some extent, however slight, trust me. Sorry, but on an
anonymous message board (which by reading the comments rushing to your defense, you should be very qualified to understand), that's the way it works.
But statistical relevance, as you note, is not always part of the design or intentions of a research project. I'm well aware of the fact that there is a good deal of research done in early stages intended to pique the interest of a funder to suggest future research. It happens all the time. I've been involved in raising money for such studies. And there's nothing wrong with doing it.
If funders find the concept interesting enough to move forward, then they'll help the process along. If not, then they won't. The law of jungle in terms of research grants and fundraising.
So you admit then, that there is a chance that the results of this study and the seemingly sensational commentary (albeit vague in its own sense) that comes with it are being used as more of a marketing tool for the advancement of something besides hard science? Heck, then we agree; I put down my sword.
As to your earlier question: I'm not sure I would be qualified to sit on a
peer review panel with these researchers, if "peer" means "psychologists masquerading as biologists studying the sexual orientation-maternal immune response link". If peer means someone who understands the scientific method, and can understand how crap smells different than roses, then yes, I think I am qualified...although probably not the most qualified candidate out there. However, if I had to sit on a panel that determined whether or not to continue funding his work, I think I might be very qualified.
Of course, I could say I invented the Internet, but would that make it true? Or would your "built-in, shock-proof, shit detector," go off? The point being: unless you and I swap resumes, check references, and schedule personal interviews, we're not going to
really know the truth, are we? And even then, we've still got the Jayson Blair's and Kaavya Viswanathan's out there, don't we?
I'm here every day (and twice on Thursdays
) if you desire to debate merits or trade barbs. I'll hope for the former.
In the 5 1/2 months since I've been gone, when were you adorned moderator? If you don't like my tone, then ignore me. On the other hand, if you want to engage with or call me out, then be prepared for my rebuttle.
I don't believe I ever threatened to ban, assclown, or engage in any other unpleasantries with you, dear Alice, as would be the power of a moderator (in fact, knowing your background on this site and your friendships with the current mods, I find your question teeming with irony). Further, I don't believe I attempted to coerce you in any way....outside maybe a little chiding to attempt more civil discussion. The diversity in background of the posters forming opinions is what makes a public message board a great thing to be a part of sometimes. Drawing a parallel, if we all had to be supremely qualified to talk football (let's say having been a coach, GM, athletic director, or owner of a football team) on this board, how many threads would ever be started?
BTW: Aloyouis (not that I know him personally from Adam, nor do I think he's incapable of defending himself), between the lines, has attempted to back away from his original commentary (at least his approach anyways) - I'll give him credit for that. Isn't your rep to be
"quite encouraging and friendly to newbies"?
I await your rebuttal. I do not wish to turn this into a pissing match. Thanks for the work you've done previously on this site.
You're kidding me, right? The whole study, from which I can gather, is based upon taking 944 samples, and extrapolating a hypothesis based upon those observations. I've made a buck or two determining statistical relevance in my time, and I was trying to explain to you that a 944 person sample is not a large enough data size for this type of work in order to make any real conclusions concerning the human condition.
