Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Well if you're excluding all papers that cite studies that are flawed in some way, then I doubt that either one of us will be left with enough studies to count on one hand.
|
Don't you mean on one
finger?
LOL.
I mean, a basic premise of scientific inquiry is that nothing is ever proven, only disproven; that no one study is conclusive, anyway. They are all flawed in the sense that all can and must be improved upon. That is, I think, the very nature of scienctific exploration and development.
KMA,
I was going to post this to you a bit ago but didn't want it to come across as snarky.
Whenever you write or think "prove" then you need to replace that with "failed to disprove [the null hypothesis]." It may appear symantic, but it's not to statisticians (for some reason, lol, I'm not one).
Has to do with the inability to prove 100% something will occur, so the jargon doesn't even allow that kind of talk, and by extension, thought.