Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (884815)	9/3/2015 5:49:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578479

The important point is that the existence of these points is not conclusive, which even the authors said in the abstract you linked: Far more conclusive than its a choice.

To: i-node who wrote (884815)	9/3/2015 7:10:02 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578479

You do realize that the abstract was for the paper which was peer reviewed and published? I suspect the ones who reviewed the paper know a little bit more about methodologies and procedures than you do. In addition, it confirms other studies that generated similar results. The study was done to confirm work done in the early 1990s, but on a larger scale. The original study had a small sample size. This is how science is done. A single study may suggest something, like genes linked to male homosexuality. Follow on studies confirm or disprove those results. Especially ones that use the same methodologies and procedures. No doubt there will be more, but the results here are pretty unambiguous. And then you devolve into the exact wording of the abstract. Talk about the refuge of last resort. Real scientists are reluctant to run naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!", although it might be more entertaining if they did. If they make an unambiguous statement, it usually means one of those bought "studies" that used to abound during the decades of denial about the link between smoking and cancer. Or for climate denial. If it is real science it is couched with qualfiers. Try reading some real papers. By the way, the scientific method is not what you seem to think it is. Here is a handy graphic. That paper fits into this process quite nicely. The "refine, alter, expand or reject hypotheses" bubble. So my understanding of the scientific method is just fine. You apparently took a phrase you didn't understand and applied it to something very different.