sundin13 said:
DarkD said:
It's not a lack of trust in social sciences. It's simply put, the sample size is too small to use that study. It's not a study that says anything is factual, it's a study that says, "look at these other things you guys may wanna research." It's not meant for you to use as proof of fact. It's a small piece of evidence that can be used by both sides of the argument to say whatever the hell they want.
It's like a trial in a court of law. You have to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you can punish someone over it. You can't just say "Mr Johnson saw Patty enter the flower shop at 4:30 and the crime took place at 4:40; therefor, Patty is guilty" You need MORE EVIDENCE.
Getting back to the matter at hand here. We're talking about decisions that could very well be mutilating small children. I refuse to vote for it if all we have is a weak study. |
The study isn't weak. You just don't seem to understand it (and for that matter, you don't seem to understand statistics either).
|
The study is weak, and no one on this thread understands statistics. I'm just the only guy who tried to make an honest effort. If you wanna obsess over the one tiny flaw you found in my argument and say the other 99% of it is worthless, go ahead. Votes don't require your input. Continue living in an echo chamber.
