Author: Chris Carson
Date: 14:14:35 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 16:27:36, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On February 07, 2003 at 15:34:25, Chris Carson wrote: > >>You are entitled to your opinion. However, you do state that some things are >>"Scientific" and others are not. I have offered assistance to study (science is >>how you study, not what) some of these things. It is an open offer. > >No, I haven't stated that some things are scientific and some not. But I've >stated that I doubt your method of studying that subject and reach results that >can be considered scientifically valid. > >The most "optimal" experimental setup was my personal preference. People can >test anything they want. I would find it less interesting, but not necessarily >irrelevant. > >>If you make a statement, then it is up to you to back it up. > >No, I've posed a question where the answer doesn't seem apparent from a variety >of reasons. Dedicating my life to answering it wasn't implied. > >>I can be persuaded >>by valid "scientific" study. You have provided neither the method nor the >>results to back up your statements. > >That's not correct. I've explained why previous data isn't applicable to the >question posed. Particularly in terms of the experimental setup with the changed >parameters. Pregame study of the used engine being the most important. A history >of experience the another. And I'm not quite sure why I should consider >persuading you an accomplishment. > >>You did "attack" my "capabilities", that is fine you have your opinion, >however, >>I will not continue a discussion when you doubt my stated capabilities. I do >not see the point. > >This demands a notion of empirical science. I doubt your qualified in that >respect. Especially the part of statistical analysis. > >Regards, >Mogens Here are a couple of Peer Reviewed scientific articles that emphasis both Scientific Method and Statistical Analysis: Carson, C (1996) "Using the TQC problem-solving process to develop an improved estimation technique", Texas Instruments Technical Journal, Nov-Dec, Vol. 13 No.6, pp. 101 - 106. Carson, C & Carson, P (1997) "Peer review: a quantitative comparison Inspections vs. Structured walkthrough", Texas Instruments Technical Journal, Jan-Feb, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 89 - 94. These two pertain to your "acusation", I have many more published articles in Tech Journals and Health Publications and have completed a Ph.D and Professional Licensure. You stated this in a previous post about someone else: "This is what makes it an opinion as opposedto indisputable fact. If you have a different opinion, then fine, but please refrain from stating chicken logic. Thanks in advance." Perhaps your statement pertains to your "opinion"? What are your qualifications? Best Regards, Chris Carson
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.