/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4538176

Dead wrong. They're both untrue but part one is easily ten thousand times more true than part two.

Much as it bugs me to admit it, even if windmill unicornfart power was a viable competitor to ANYTHING, you'd still see grey-haired Cheneyan fucks all over the senate floor denouncing it as double communism hitler.

This country needs an enema.

>>2707805
Agreed. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the behavioral/dispositional trends that relate to the current subject can be attributed to differences in parenting styles and techniques. Stephen Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate)) would disagree, but fuck him.

>>2707819
Don'tknowifserious...
I don't come here often, but from what I've seen, I think I'd like this place.
I'm actually (subconsciously?) using this thread to avoid working on my final (psychology oriented) inferential statistics project... which is due in 3 hours... which is 40% of my final grade... which will obviously determine whether or not I fail this class... at the graduate level.

>>2707830
Proper *set* of controls, you mean. And yea, it is difficult, hence the 4 years or more to get a phd in the field and the fucking gauntlet you have to go through to conduct research or get published in anything half decent.
Maybe you're experiment would yield good data... who knows? I certainly think it would be open to critiques regarding design and methodology, and probably implications as well. Can I design a better experiment? Maybe, Insomuch as my current experience/familiarity with this sort of thing would allow. First I'd have to know what question we're trying to answer. That's really key. The more refined and specific the question you ask, the more likely it is that you will be able to successfully design and conduct an experiment that answers it. I should think this is true for all sciences, not just the "social sciences".

End part one of response.

Fuck... 2nd time

I won't fall for this again