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.

Yet we used to often see studies that were almost completely bogus,
touted as proving something. I recall one study on cycling rates
following the imposition of an MHL where those doing the study decided
that they would simply not count a large group of cyclists that passed
by the counting location because they didn't think that they were normal
cycling traffic. That was a study to "prove" that MHLs caused a decrease
in cycling rates.

Yet the Odense study was actually pretty good as far as these things go,
with two control groups so factors other than the presence or absence of
lights cancelled out. And while it was only a 32% reduction in accident
rates, the fact that 85% cyclists "felt safer" is also a positive
outcome if it leads to higher cycling rates. Part of the reason that
cycling rates trend up following the passing of an MHL is probably the
same reason--"oh, if I wear a helmet then I'll be safe."