Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:38:42 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120638.XAA02274@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971111222819.1399A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> References: <199711120626.XAA02122@rocky.mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971111222819.1399A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > 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. > > That's not nice, Nate. Neither is throwing out the results of something just because you don't want to believe in them. It's called having a closed mind. > Bogus results are possible. Sure, but given the intention of the people doing the tests, and their testing methodology, their results are as valid as any 'experiment' done today whose results are based on a single study, which covers about 80% of the published studies done. Heck, most of today's medicines and medical research is done with single studies, based solely on the difficulty in getting good test subjects, length of time needed, and the need to come up with 'valid' and 'current' results. Most scientific/open-minded don't question these studies which have equally 'questionable' results, yet when it comes to religion the studies are thrown out as bogus. > But can you repeat this experiment and get statistically valid results? I'd be willing to bet that it's repeatable. > That's science. That one group got better and the other didn't--once-- > isn't science. No-one has been wiling to disprove it, and the test in question has been done multiple times, but never to the same degree as was done in the S.F. hospital. It *has* been repeated multiple times, but in all but this most recent case the data has been considered tainted. The most recent study was done in such a manner that it was hard to refute the results. (Amazingly enough, the original purpose of the study was to refute the other 'bogus' studies that were done, so the results were in effect the opposite of the intent.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120638.XAA02274>