Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
I wasn't the one who questioned your qualifications, and I have no desire to get into some sort of personal pissing match with you. I'll readily admit I don't have the qualifications you are looking for. I finished my two degrees in 3 years total. But no, they weren't hard science degrees.
There are smart researchers out there. The best man at my wedding got his PhD studying the physics of muon spin resonance. He's brilliant. I also know he regularly complained about how several of the other grad students he had to work with were idiots. "Idiot" is relative. If I find a flaw in a study's design in less than 5 minutes, that researcher is an idiot to me, regardless of how smart they may seem to you. Not all researchers are brilliant, and if you think they are, you are missing the point of the system that allows for their work to be weeded out over time.
|
What I'm looking for is some justification for your blanket statement that 'Most studies are designed by stupid people'. A pissing contest isn't necessary; only some information that assures us that you are qualified to make the above generalization. But then, if you were qualified to do so, you wouldn't make such a statement.
I have already pointed out that errors in research are identified and corrected with time. It's only the frauds and charlatans, like Andrew Wakefield and his ilk, who persist in the face of contradictory evidence and lead people who pride themselves on being intelligent and knowledgable, in spite of having no education in the area, down false paths. And, no - having good SAT scores and/or some AP courses doesn't take the place of actual graduate level courses in the hard sciences. Nor does having had a best man with a PhD.
Most intelligent people accept that they don't have expert knowledge about everything - law, for example - and will consult an expert about matters of importance outside their area of education. You have admitted that your education is not in the sciences, but you nevertheless view yourself as an expert in scientific research, qualified to dictate who is, and is not, an idiot.
Can you describe the different types of studies, the advantages and drawbacks of each, and the situations in which each is appropriate, clod? Do you understand what makes a good study? Do you understand how to analyze the data from a given study - which statistical tests are appropriate and which can't be used, and whether the results are statistically significant? Can you tell us whether this study was designed with sufficient power to render significant results? Do you know what the term 'power' refers to, in this context?
If you knew anything in this area, you wouldn't have made such a statement in the first place.