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?
Picking at the details while ignoring the main points is common
enough. You are doing it right here in this discussion. My main
point was that there is no proof that a correlation between bicycle
crashes and flashing lights constitutes causation. You ignored that
and went on to deal with the trivia.

Let me propose a method, extracted from my previous rant, which I use:
1. Go to the original source. Avoid summary or survey sources.
2. Find what person or organization is paying for the study. That
often reveals a hidden agenda.
3. Compare the abstract and summery in the report with the actual
data. Often, they're quite different.
4. Look for inconsistencies, dubious sources, "normalization",
pre-selection of participants, and statistical creativity.

All this is certainly "pick it apart" methodology. Oddly, I can't
find a better way to deal with a study or report.

You also seem to ignoring the not so trivial problem that we *ALL* are
discussing the issue without access to the original report and numbers
from the trial. I would like to see the number of accidents with and
without the flashing lights, the methodology, and how the numbers were
produced before blundering further with my guesswork.





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