She treated it with good faith and was mislead, based on this. I sympathize.
One look at that survey told me all I needed. It smacked of loaded questions. And what shaggirl writes here pretty much comfirms my suspicions. These researchers have a preset notion the results they want and have set the stage acoordingly so that the data matches. Anything else will be disregarded. It'll be interesting to see the comments of a peer review, but I doubt we'll see it. I doubt for that matter there will even be a peer review since he's already talking about an agent and publishing a book.
There will be peers reviewing said possible book though. And then, in some cases, the initial author/s will write a whole book dedicated to rebutting criticisms. In this case, such a text will no doubt be painful, and a great object to point and laugh at.
That won't stop people commenting on it if they desire to do so, whether it be people in the field, people invested in the topic, or other pop pseudoscientists. This artice is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Ah! Now I get the crack_van post. I hadn't seen her misguided promotion of That Survey, since I don't watch crack_van. It was very good of her to apologize and give such a detailed explanation of what happened.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 02:15 pm (UTC)One look at that survey told me all I needed. It smacked of loaded questions. And what shaggirl writes here pretty much comfirms my suspicions. These researchers have a preset notion the results they want and have set the stage acoordingly so that the data matches. Anything else will be disregarded. It'll be interesting to see the comments of a peer review, but I doubt we'll see it. I doubt for that matter there will even be a peer review since he's already talking about an agent and publishing a book.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-04 05:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-04 07:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-05 12:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 02:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 02:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 03:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-03 04:16 pm (UTC)I see what your reference was now. *nods*
Thanks for sharing more of this.
:)