see how incestuous this all is? We have a study of studies (NIH) referencing a study of studies (Jensen) referencing a study of studies (Chowdhury), referencing…nothing at all. It’s actually weirdly analogous to cancer itself, or maybe I’m just seeing cancer everywhere by now.
This especially is the kind of thing that make me really doubt you are “science literate.”
Can you please define the terms: p-value, confidence interval, regression (it’s okay if you’ve only done linear/exponential in college algebra, if you’ve gotten that far I can get you up to speed), and significance for me?
I think I linked around 4 or 5 scientific studies to you, and quoted sections of them extensively, so we do have some textual evidence of me reading scientific studies here. (I could also mention that I get paid about $45/week by a doctoral student to do things like teach him ANCOVA, but this is the internet and I’m a dog for all you know.)
If you actually read scientific studies you’d know that most of those terms you googled are fairly irrelevant when critiquing the methods of a study or the lack of data in general. They’re all ways of analyzing results and I haven’t taken any issue with them.
I also think scientists nowadays have an undue fetishization of anaylsis to the detriment of basic methodology, but again, that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.
Yeah, significance doesn’t matter at all when we do scientific research. The mathematical techniques you use when analyzing data have nothing to do with methodology.
I’ll have to let that doctoral student I’m helping with a multiple regression study know that I’m just googling everything, lol.
This especially is the kind of thing that make me really doubt you are “science literate.”
Have you ever once in your life read a scientific study?
Lol didn’t think so.
Can you please define the terms: p-value, confidence interval, regression (it’s okay if you’ve only done linear/exponential in college algebra, if you’ve gotten that far I can get you up to speed), and significance for me?
I think I linked around 4 or 5 scientific studies to you, and quoted sections of them extensively, so we do have some textual evidence of me reading scientific studies here. (I could also mention that I get paid about $45/week by a doctoral student to do things like teach him ANCOVA, but this is the internet and I’m a dog for all you know.)
If you actually read scientific studies you’d know that most of those terms you googled are fairly irrelevant when critiquing the methods of a study or the lack of data in general. They’re all ways of analyzing results and I haven’t taken any issue with them.
I also think scientists nowadays have an undue fetishization of anaylsis to the detriment of basic methodology, but again, that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.
Yeah, significance doesn’t matter at all when we do scientific research. The mathematical techniques you use when analyzing data have nothing to do with methodology.
I’ll have to let that doctoral student I’m helping with a multiple regression study know that I’m just googling everything, lol.
I don’t click on random youtube links.