RE: Steve Wing, a scientist?

["Perrero, Daren" <Perrero@idns.state.il.us>]

I thought the ability to repeat the experiment with the same results was
essentially the main part of the effort in testing any hypothesis.  If the
results are not repeatable, then wouldn't the hypothesis be called into
question?  As a result, shouldn't a "preponderance" of data be labeled as
"validation" as opposed to "absurd"?

Daren Perrero
Health Physicist
perrero@idns.state.il.us


-----Original Message-----
From: Rudi Nussbaum [mailto:d4rn@pdx.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:03 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Steve Wing, a scientist?


If two studies based on the same raw data lead to different findings, it
clearly shows the influence (unconscious or deliberate) of methodology, in
particular the importance of identifying all important
confounders. Therefore, "preponderance", i.e. counting off number of
published studies and deciding about their validity by majority rule is
absurd. There is only valid refutation of the one study that disagrees
with the other one hundred if you can show an error in the analysis.The
other important question to ask is: who sponsors and pays for the
research?
rudi H. Nussbaum

--
Dr. Rudi Nussbaum
Please note my new email address
d4rn@odin.pdx.edu or d4rn@pdx.edu
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html