I read this paper and the authors make some pretty amazing leaps of  
logic.  This does not mean they are wrong and I believe they are  
probably right ; still it makes me realize what a cat's bag of  
confusion most information packets are these days.  Probably for the  
past 10,000 years as well.
cc

> On Jul 24, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Matthew Rhys-Roberts wrote:
>
> For further interest, an in relation to the more recent PIClist thread
> regarding mobile phones and cancer, please see also
> http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/bias.asp
>
> Matt
>
> Apptech wrote:
>> The claim that 'most published research findings are false',
>> while demonstrably true, is so utterly contrary to intuition
>> and to what we think we know about research methods,
>> statistical analysis and more as to be rejected out of hand
>> by many.
>>
> [snip]
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist