Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
^^^Furthermore, the fact that the legal and scientific systems run on drastically different criteria may account for the "flawed" EPA study. It frequently occurs that what is statistically significant say at the <.05 level, (meaning that there is less than a 5% chance that the result occured by chance alone) is not the same as PROVING something to a court.
|
That wasn't the issue--it was picking and choosing of information.
In order for the study to have been fair, the EPA should have brought all 13 studies into the mix.
By excluding studies that didn't say what they wanted, they completely tainted their results.
As a result, the EPA then through its entire study into doubt.
Hence my reservation with further studies that use the EPA study as a major reference.