|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Yea but who is this guy and who is his sponsor? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
From reading the paper, however, they DID do some REAL research. Which showed up
poor research in the original papers.
For those who haven't read the paper, what they found was ...
The paper they examined in detail excluded a load of data. In particular, they
excluded from the study, people who had *not* bought a CD during the study
period, on the assumption that they never bought CDs so they didn't represent an
actual loss. Despite the evidence available to the study that many of them had
bought CDs the year before.
So, to sum up, they have concluded that many studies "conveniently"
exclude inconvenient evidence, using assumptions that even the evidence the
researchers have available shows up those assumptions to be false.
Not good science.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|