ANNOUNCEMENT: This forum has been archived and its community moved to the Star Wars Gamer forum. mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The future of the Republican Party
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-01-2009, 09:06 PM   #33
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,001
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Would you want to fly in an airplane where the safety studies were done by someone with a history of skewing the data to make it seem like it was safe when the wings were about to come off?
I'm sure that safety study would never pass regulations. If it said that the wing hanging off is fine, then I doubt it would be allowed on any plane.

Find us proof that this has been manipulated. He got suspended for one study because they knew he had manipulated data. His study has passed regulation thus far, which counts for even more in my book because he'll have people breathing down the neck of his research.

If he is being so watched and kept on a leash for this, then it would only make sense that his further research would be under an even tougher eye. He has passed thus far.

The burden of proof is still on your shoulder to prove, without a doubt, that this information is skewed. You've given opinion and speculation, but nothing else.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Not all of it, because it violated quite a few smell tests just based on SkinWalker's posts. I did some looking into the guy's background, and found that the man had been suspended for conducting a similar study only it involved genders if I remember correctly.
You just admitted to creating a strawman. If you don't agree, re-read the definiton of a Strawman.

As I proved in my previous post, you did not read Skin's post or read the actual research. Because you couldn't create a valid argument based on anything but speculation, you instead opted to attack his character.

You are making assumptions and baseless arguments after not properly looking into what you are arguing. That is a strawman, and it is a poor debating tool.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I read part of it, and how it was presented so are you telling me that SkinWalker misrepresented the data?
Sorry, your argument became invalid after "I read part of it".

You are making without-a-doubt assumptions on a poster, researcher, and study without properly researching any of them. For all of your so called research skills, you've done little to no research thus far. You have not even bothered to fully read the posts of the people you are debating.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Any studies that have to do with intelligence of people based on race, gender, and/or religion in my book and based on history are usually subject to blatent bias.
"Statistically, women buy more tampons than men"

That is study based on gender, but it probably isn't skewed unless you have an argument for why men would be buying more than women.

"In my book" is speculation and opinion, both of which you have admitted to forming after doing poor research. You have yet, however, to prove "based on history". The burden of that proof is, again, on your shoulders.

Your argument is based on speculation, and I'm guessing a person beef with the results. But, from what I pointed out, your beef is misplaced due to not properly researching the data you are refuting.

So, again of course it is subject to bias or manipulation. All data is. The thing is, you need to prove that is had been or it is just baseless speculation.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Pot calling the kettle black there...
Says the person who has actually admitted to ignoring facts and posts. I've read all of your posts in this thread, and read the study. Pointing out you have done none does not make me a pot. You are calling me a pot because you are trying to justify not doing any further research so that you can stay within your own boxed opinion.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Making a mistake is not the same as deliberately distorting data, the person conducting the study was suspended for deliberately tampering with the data.
So, why hasn't this study been taken down yet?

"Tampering with data" would mean more if you understood what data you are trying to disprove.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is I don't have to prove anything more than I have, the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study, if they have compromised their credibility it throws other research of a similar nature into question. That's why getting accused of something like this is such a big deal.
See, that is where you are wrong. Burden of proof is on you in this debate, or you can admit you have nothing more than strawmans to show us. If that is the case, then you may as well stop while you are behind.

Then why has this data not been ripped apart and show for being false? You are placing a situation onto something in which there is no proof that situation exists by your admittance.

While it is important to question, you would rather attack the possibility than the data and posts in which you have admitted to not reading.

Go back and read posts and the sources before digging yourself a deeper hole.


As for your accusations, read more than wikipedia for a change:

This is the official report.

They found no evidence of Fraud. There is, however, evidence of poor math on two accounts in his paper. He gave unsatisfactory details in a few areas, making them obsolete.

It was not that he "manipulated data" as you point out with your poor research. He was suspended for lack of diligence in his research, and presenting an incomplete study.

Due to his poor math at that time, some of his final data was mathematically impossible to determine so his study was called obsolete and he was suspended for lack of due diligence.

This proves my point that these studies are pulled apart and looked at carefully despite what you say. There have been no official accusations of manipulation, fraud, etc on the study of God and Intelligence.

Your "I put him into google and found problems with the first 2 links" theory are correct as you pointed our earlier in the thread, but you did no research past that. Come back later when you understand what you are debating, and understand your side of this instead of parroting wikipedia.

And, before you try, I will continue to point out what you have not read from now on in this thread. It would be advisable for you to re-read everything in this thread that you ignored before continuing.
True_Avery is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > LucasForums Archive > Star Wars: Jedi Knight series > Community > Senate Chambers > The future of the Republican Party

discovery institute , escr , focus on the family , gop , roe v. wade

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:14 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2015 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.