Christopher, from the point of view of the natural sciences -- physics, chemistry, biology, geology -- you are way off base. I dare you to show me how a skinny person weighing something around 10 micrograms (a very small amount) will come up with a statistically different weight than a fat person. I will make similar claims about light measurement. Certainly there are differences in instruments; that's why they are periodically calibrated, and that's why their statistical tolerances are known.
In the case of the social sciences you have a different situation altogether. All too often the experimenter is part of the "experiment" (recovered memories comes to mind). That's one of the criticisms that has been leveled against some social scientists for years. And that's why legitimate social scientists are so concerned with experimental design and protocols. That's why double blind experimental designs are routinely used. Nevertheless, all of this is irrelevant to my thesis.
Let me put it this way: if you were to measure the freezing point and boiling point of triple-distilled water at standard pressure (1 atmosphere) you would find that the water freezes at 0 degrees C and boils at 100 degrees C +/- a very small amount. I don't care whether the investigator is you, aa, E, CL, or Joan -- the answers will be the same within statistical tolerances. Nor do I care whether the experiment is done in Seattle, Brisbane, Oslo or Saigon. Nor do I care about the personal belief system of the investigator.
TTFN,
CTC |
