Big Whimper?

[John Doe]

Uh..have YOU ever fudged data, THEN had the experiment
duplicated at a RIVAL institution, who in turn went
back and told you " Hey Pal- nice try with
bullshitting your way through this experiment, but you
really fucked up "...you are naive if you think
someone ( or even a team ) who fudge or reinterpret
data are gonna be left alone to Dominate and Impose
Their Conclusion on the rest of humanity...gimme a
break

--- Keith McMullen <keithsz at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Have you ever taken a statistics class? There is no
> way scientists just 
> stop and accept the refutation of their hypotheses.
> There is too much 
> money and ego at stake. You simply reinterpret those
> non-matching 
> numbers. There are a myriad of ways to fuck around
> with the results 
> themselves, or change the variables and redo the
> experiment to get the 
> desired confirmation. The methods for doing such are
> brazenly taught in 
> any college stats class. Now before you scamper to
> the keypad to give 
> me another generous dose of common sense, of course
> there are some 
> basics that can be repeated and demonstrated and are
> just black and 
> white and crystal clear and all of that. But, that's
> not the fun stuff. 
>   Your allegiance to the clarity of the scientific
> method is a tad 
> scary. Fundamentalism in rationalist garb. And as
> for art providing 
> 'meaning' in Alice's Humpty Dumpty fashion, since
> when is art about 
> 'meaning?' The best thing about art, especially
> Pynchon's, is its 
> embracement of the futility of finding any fucking
> 'meaning.'
> 
> On 10/10/2005, at 2:46 AM, John Doe wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, this kind of process is a sort of
> > built-in Humbling Mechanism; in ART, and other
> areas
> > of endeavor, one's ego can go full crank and
> > "determine" the meanings of things...but in
> science,
> > no matter how big you ego is, no matter how
> > charismatic your personality, no matter how good
> > looking or well-connected you are, if the numbers
> > don't match in the end, your hypothesis is wrong -
> > period. Good scientists understand this 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com