RE: Cancer deficiency clusters

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> That's what I've been taught in "Research Methodology" cpurse few years

ago.



Let me get this straight, guys.  Suppose I read about a restaurant that is

decorated in blue.  And I think, "They've got it wrong.  I've been there.

It's red."  So I go back with the research intention of proving that the

restaurant is red.  And I find it's blue.  I take pictures and they come out

blue,  But that doesn't proved anything, because if my INTENTION was to

prove it red, then my photos can only "suggest" that it's blue.



C'mon.  Does anyone really believe that?  I'm willing to admit that an

experiment designed to prove one thing might not be optimum to prove

another. When you're intent on counting dead mice, you might not notice the

happy mice.  For example, there's a famous experiment which reported "Since

there is no reason to expect that radiation will beneficial, any deviations

from norm will be assumed to be detrimental."  But that's just bum science.



What am I missing here?



Ted Rockwell



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/