tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5405672219908251066.post2599288350554849338..comments2023-04-29T13:13:15.589+01:00Comments on The Second Version: OveranalysisFabiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14098143170537435563noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5405672219908251066.post-37789013766508524492007-10-29T20:29:00.000+01:002007-10-29T20:29:00.000+01:00In fact my criticism is not aimed at science in ge...In fact my criticism is not aimed at science in general, but rather at those scientist who end up "torturing" data in the attempt to prove their hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>I don't share the view that "scientific truth" is highly; volatile. Some popular theories have been proven to be utterly wrong, but others have been proven to be restricted to certain particular situations - like Newtonian an quantumFabiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14098143170537435563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5405672219908251066.post-14794170055644820802007-10-28T23:18:00.000+01:002007-10-28T23:18:00.000+01:00"You take a data series, exclude a couple of outli..."You take a data series, exclude a couple of outliers for good measure, smooth it with a filter chosen to give the appropriate slope at the extremes, and finally fit a third-order polynomial to a selected region of the series obtaining a correlation coefficient of 0.6... proof!"<BR/><BR/>That's a nice definition of "scientific truth" for dummies. 'Til the next theory will be proven, same way. <BRAbrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16391434584492799636noreply@blogger.com