On 3/21/2017 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 23:37:08 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/20/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
apart.

Actually, common practice is to first blame someone and then pick
apart the argument. However, I prefer to undermine the study and let
it collapse under its own weight.

If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method of debating the merits of
a study, what would you consider to be an acceptable method for this
newsgroup? I could use propaganda, various logical fallacies,
anecdotal evidence, my personal feelings, or perhaps fabricate a
contradictory study. Methinks that "pick it apart" is the same as
breaking down the study into individual claims and seeing how each one
holds together under stress.

There is a tendency to nitpick little things and then to declare the
entire study as worthless, when in fact, other than perhaps in drug
trials, there is just not going to be a "perfect study." Yet the goal of
the study was to determine if flashing lights were effective, and if so,
use the data to remove a ban on flashing lights. The company that was
involved in the study certainly had a vested interest in the outcome,
but they are only one of a multitude of companies that are benefiting
from the outcome.
(...)

You ignored my question. If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method
of discussing the merits of a study, what is an acceptable method?

1. Attack the statistical sample.
2. Attack the methodology.
3. Attack the premise.

Alas it's not possible to do any of those three with the Odense study. A
huge sample, a sound methodology, and a provable premise.

You can't even claim "risk compensation."