SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : ECHARTERS
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Yorikke who wrote (3283)8/7/2000 5:59:19 AM
From: E. Charters  Read Replies (1) of 3744
 
Continental drift is being measured year by year. Like global warming it is very hard to completely prove yet little denies it at all.

Reading the journals of the American Psychological Association back in the 70's one could look at all the research of doctors and other researchers seeking to prove certain things. Instead of doing pure research designed to find out phenomenon, they did tests )and still do) to prove their assertions. As an exercise we were assigned to read the reports and assess the weaknesses or validity of them. The criteria for judgement was the scientific method and the statistical relevance and logical basis of the study. Its conclusions and design could also be tested against logical theory that was Socratic and could in fact be tested by elementary booleans.

The general weakness that invalidated the tests for the most part were:

1. too small a test group.. no relevance to greater groups.
ten people tested do not relate to North America.

2. test group was too specialized. testing 70 year olds for reaction to a substance tells us little about infants.

3. results were not blind to tester and could be influenced by desire to prove certain things.

4. Intent of test not blind to tested. Bias of test subjects could influence results.

5. test design was not certain to test desired effect or
phenomonon by any criteria.

6. related results were not clear statistically within group. In other words results of test could not extrapolate a conclusion by the numbers. 3 out of ten subjects measuring positive does not indicate a powerful result.

7. results of test were invalid due to lack of relation to conclusion.. this comes from design and bias of researcher. In other words cockroach with legs pulled off was not deaf if it would not walk on command.

8. In many tests control groups or placebos were not used. Conclusions of blank or null causes were not measured.

9. Statistical conclusions and projections were not figured mathematically at all times. A measure of 90% of test results positive does not indicate a terribly dependable test for deadly a deadly result tester.

The general weaknesses of testing were

1. experimenter bias
2. poor and invalid design
3. invalid conclusions
4. interference from lack of impartiality in design and
interaction with subjects
5. poor relation to statistical relevance

And This was not just psyche testing but medical and all other scientific (as the journals reported on a wide area of investigation.)

Lack of exposure to the demonstrated scientific method as a subject of study, logic of science and statistics and test controls was the most common root of bad testing. But too often tester displayed such evident prejudice that it was pointless to expose them as they used their disciplines as a podium to their prejudice, which could not easily be erased by good testing and negative results.

The solution is to teach the scientific method to scientists as well as psychologists and sociologists. Doctors should be taught statistics, the scientific method and logic as well. All tests should be reviewed by bodies who study their design and assign validity marks to them to guide scientists.

Amazingly, science classes in University do not teach statistics or the scientific method. What science in high school and University teaches us is that single experiments lead to results that can be trusted many instances. (Cold fusion?) Also it teaches that what we set out to prove can be tested by a test method we choose by simple inference. Bad teaching and too widely reinforced. All too often the media reports on authority that has none.

EC<:-}

mailto:echarters@primus.ca
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News