On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:17:38 -0700, sms
wrote:
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.

Very good. Please add:
4. Attack the data, if there was any manipulation.
5. Attack the conclusions, if they do not relate to the data.
6. Attack the presentation, if it is structured to confuse.
7. Attack the researchers, if they have an obvious agenda.
8. Attack the publisher, if they edited the report to be "suitable
for publication".
9. Attack the reader, if they are not expected to understand the
report.
10. Attack the author, if present himself as an expert, but without
sufficient qualifications.
11. Attach the sponsor, if there is any potential conflict of
interest.
12. Attack the references, if they are irrelevant, as most are.
13. Attack those not involved in the study, if their involvement would
have improved the accuracy and validity. If that's not available,
accuse the non-involved of sabotaging the study or influencing the
participants.

With these additions, I would suspect that all this constitutes "pick
it apart" and does not constitute an alternative method of argument.
Might as well be blunt... there is no other way to properly debate a
study other than taking it apart, seeing how it ticks, and debunking
everything available, point by point. The other available techniques,
such as propaganda, brainwashing, subliminals, and pontification, are
not really valid methods of debate and discussion.

Alas it's not possible to do any of those three with the Odense study.

Correct. Since the study is not available, YOU cannot claim that it's
valid, authoritative, or even useful from just a summary or extract.
One needs the original study in order to make claims.

A huge sample, a sound methodology, and a provable premise.

Huh? You just declared that it's not possible to analyze the report
and now you repeat your claims. I can do that too. Suppose I write a
report on my study of bicycle sales and declare that at the present
rate of cycling acceptance, everyone on the planet will soon own and
ride a bicycle. I then lock the study behind a pay wall and produce a
summary or abstract that declares that 50% more LBS owners believe
that bicycle production will soon flood the planet. You would have no
clue as to the size of my LBS shop owner sample, how I came to my
conclusion, and what I've done to prove it. Your claims that the
flashing light reduced crashes by 30% is much the same as my claim.

You can't even claim "risk compensation."

Huh? I don't understand.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558