Billbrpt, Since this _IS_ a technical forum, I am calling for some technical data. You state: >Although I respect Ric and all of his writings about this, at times it >seems to me that he wishes he could prove the world is really flat, that >this "round" thing that we have been on to since this Columbus guy and his >buddy Gallileo started fooling around is really all a big hoax. ...and also say: >On one hand, you may be right, Ric, they were all *trying* to tune >ET. But guess what? They still are! , etc., etc. Just yesterday, I was talking with a new friend who is a bio-research technician at Mayo and toured the lab discussing experiments, statistically significant samples, calibration error, and papers given with author credit. With this fresh in my mind I read, "They still are". I'm sure that you have in the past, but I must have accidentally deleted that post, so could you please restate your references for our benefit? Who are "they", and upon what study do you base your conclusion and make this statement? How large a sample is in that study? Is the data reproducible? Note: Anecdotal evidence from a single source does _not_ constitute a scientific study. >ET: Believe in it or wander the earth in an endless quest for the truth >and peace of mind. Scientific discourse does allow for difference of opinion/conclusion, but only if reliable data (i.e. beyond statistical error) is present to back up that conclusion. Conrad Hoffsommer - mailto:hoffsoco@luther.edu -A rose by any other name would still attract aphids.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC