Re: The Bell Curve : Reaction time and IQ
Paul Bernhardt (pb1487@u.cc.utah.edu)
4 Apr 1995 21:16:27 GMT
Hugh LaMaster (lamaster@viking.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <3lplc3$7v3@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,
: penrose@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
: [cnc115@cybernetics.net (Pete Lienemann) wrote]
: |> >Once again we see, "Pick a conclusion then acquire/manipulate the data to
: |> >support it."
: |>
: |>
: |> Unfortunately this is and has been the basis of what we consider "science."
: No, it isn't. You are wrong.
While in general, science proceeds by following the data in an unbiased
fashion, it unfortunately does not work so well always. For instance, I
am working some meta-analysis of studies of chlamydia. The research
team that I belong too recently worked on a similar meta-analysi of
treatments for a certain medical condition. The physicians in the study
specifically excluded people who might be sensitive to side effects of
the medications. They then conclude that there are no side effect
problems. This didn't happen in just one study but in several, and is
particularly a problem in the medical community. My impression is that
the more money involved in the research, the more likely it is that
studies will be constructed with these problems.
|