From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 11 22:36:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA17257 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:36:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from andrsn.stanford.edu (root@andrsn.Stanford.EDU [36.33.0.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA17252 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:36:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu) Received: from localhost (andrsn@localhost.stanford.edu [127.0.0.1]) by andrsn.stanford.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01410; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:30:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: Annelise Anderson To: Nate Williams cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) In-Reply-To: <199711120626.XAA02122@rocky.mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > > > Umm, the people who got better weren't praying, they were being prayed > > > for, and by people whom they had no contact with. > > > > Which proves, simply, that truly bogus results are possible even in > > well designed experiments. > > Actually, your statement proves that closed minds exists, even by people > who claim to be 'scientific' and 'open-minded'. Then again, maybe you > don't consider yourself open-minded, so I may be jumping to conclusions. > > > > Nate > That's not nice, Nate. Bogus results are possible. But can you repeat this experiment and get statistically valid results? That's science. That one group got better and the other didn't--once-- isn't science. AA