A Response To: "Reading Between The Numbers"
Read This First --------> Editorial Link
Wendy,
Come on, what are you trying to do here? I wholeheartedly agree that one should be educated on the efficacy of statistical analysis, but the other issue on which they need to be educated is scientific method. Yes, how one forms their hypothesis can have a large effect on the outcome of their research. Furthermore, how one conducts their research and the sample size will also have an effect on results. All these things and more can introduce bias and error into a study. But, that is why there is peer review. If a study is not sound, the scientific or related community will point it out using more facts or a better study. To dismiss a study because it runs contrary to your common sense, which is HEAVILY influenced by your ideological beliefs, is a ridiculous and, frankly, dangerous suggestion. You say that ideology can influence scientific research, but I dare say that ideology will have a much larger effect on one's "common sense". What you are essentially asking readers to do is to dismiss findings that run contrary to their ideology unless it has a confidence level so high that is equivalent to a very large baseball bat to the head.
The reality is that social science studies are rarely going to be completely clear or overwhelmingly convincing. They involve humans and they are notoriously fuzzy to begin with. However, when statistical relevance suggests a pattern or trend that may be detrimental the health of many, why not float it? If it's bogus, someone or some organization will prove it. But to ask people to dismiss something contrary to their ideologically influenced common sense based on their feelings and simplified math is simply disingenuous and smacks of faith over rational thought and debate, i.e. "purveyor of truth". Furthermore, your overt implication that there is a larger conspiracy behind biased research that will somehow result in more money for studies (less overtly implying the use of tax money) or expensive therapy (which means more healthcare costs) speaks loudly to YOUR ideology and what you are trying to do. Let's be clear that this is a message that you and many others (Junk Science guy for one) who write editorials for this website try to repeat as often as possible in hopes of distracting your readers from evidence contrary to an ideological belief, i.e. studies that purport to counter our ideologies are only trying to get funding at taxpayer's expense or are trying to build business for bogus services at consumer's expense.
Do you think all your readers cannot read between the lines?
Don't you think it's a little insulting to your readers as a whole to think that propaganda will not be seen for what it is?
How about a little more informed opinion and a little less ideological dogma wrapped up in editorial commentary.
Read This First --------> Editorial Link
Wendy,
Come on, what are you trying to do here? I wholeheartedly agree that one should be educated on the efficacy of statistical analysis, but the other issue on which they need to be educated is scientific method. Yes, how one forms their hypothesis can have a large effect on the outcome of their research. Furthermore, how one conducts their research and the sample size will also have an effect on results. All these things and more can introduce bias and error into a study. But, that is why there is peer review. If a study is not sound, the scientific or related community will point it out using more facts or a better study. To dismiss a study because it runs contrary to your common sense, which is HEAVILY influenced by your ideological beliefs, is a ridiculous and, frankly, dangerous suggestion. You say that ideology can influence scientific research, but I dare say that ideology will have a much larger effect on one's "common sense". What you are essentially asking readers to do is to dismiss findings that run contrary to their ideology unless it has a confidence level so high that is equivalent to a very large baseball bat to the head.
The reality is that social science studies are rarely going to be completely clear or overwhelmingly convincing. They involve humans and they are notoriously fuzzy to begin with. However, when statistical relevance suggests a pattern or trend that may be detrimental the health of many, why not float it? If it's bogus, someone or some organization will prove it. But to ask people to dismiss something contrary to their ideologically influenced common sense based on their feelings and simplified math is simply disingenuous and smacks of faith over rational thought and debate, i.e. "purveyor of truth". Furthermore, your overt implication that there is a larger conspiracy behind biased research that will somehow result in more money for studies (less overtly implying the use of tax money) or expensive therapy (which means more healthcare costs) speaks loudly to YOUR ideology and what you are trying to do. Let's be clear that this is a message that you and many others (Junk Science guy for one) who write editorials for this website try to repeat as often as possible in hopes of distracting your readers from evidence contrary to an ideological belief, i.e. studies that purport to counter our ideologies are only trying to get funding at taxpayer's expense or are trying to build business for bogus services at consumer's expense.
Do you think all your readers cannot read between the lines?
Don't you think it's a little insulting to your readers as a whole to think that propaganda will not be seen for what it is?
How about a little more informed opinion and a little less ideological dogma wrapped up in editorial commentary.
posted by Mike at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home