"

> Could you please elaborate specifically on an example of the sort of "standard" that you are speaking of, so that we can discuss this intelligently?

Seriously, people have been studying cause and effect using the scientific method for 200 years. Every year some Johnny come lately says y'all been doing it wrong. Some of the comments are so far off the map, they're "not even wrong."


Your correct Pete,  but your completely missing the point.  The works you cite are completely stand alone and not measured to any remotely cositant standard.

I am not sure but it seems to me intentionally obtuse.  No claim or statement has made that any of these points are wrong,  just that they as stand alone data bits are completely unrepeatable, and unverifiable, and meaningless.  All of them are based on the researchers yardstick of the day.  

That’s the change I propose.   Makes me wonder, am I that bad at explaining, or???

Charles

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html