To: Cacaito who wrote (7618 ) 11/1/1998 8:15:00 PM From: Robert S. Respond to
Cacaito, as is often the case, you have made some valid points but there are some statements from your last post that warrant comment:Robert S, it is a review, not an original work, the bottom of the reference specify it. Holzheimer refers to certain recent works against the evidence that suppressing Your reference is a very good review. This is very important to sit down and learn. e.g., 20-20 hindsight, comparison to similar studies, a greater degree of objectivity) that an original research project lacks and, as you said, one can learn from it. Similarly, the fact that a published article pertains to original research, does not guarantee that the research adds to our collective knowledge. If we accept, as scientifically correct, your critique of the Lutsar study, then this illustrates that original research may very well lack some of the benefits of published reviews. In fact, was not your critique of the Lutsar study itself a review? And, did we not learn perhaps more from your comments and opinions than those who performed the actual investigation?
