Nick, controlling for SES (or any other factor) is not a "dogmatic assumption". It is a necessary part of producing a valid empirical study.
-
-
Replying to @anti_minotaur @adornofthagn
Bullshit. You can't control for the impact of the thing you're trying to examine without making that thing disappear.
4 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
is low SES identical to high T? otherwise your complaint is nonsensical, demands the study be about something else than it actually is
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @thomasmurphy__ @adornofthagn
If you were arguing with me, rather than with the entire tide of biological realism, that would sting.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @thomasmurphy__
is this the right wing version of, history will absolve me?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @adornofthagn @thomasmurphy__
If science wasn't at least to a minimal level of adequacy independent of your bullshit, we would indeed be screwed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @thomasmurphy__ @adornofthagn
Given adequate regime diversity, that's all anyone is going to get. I have enough confidence in the prospects of regime diversity to have confidence in the future of science. So yes. (What have you got?)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Because your appeal to "control factors" is entirely sophistical. And the only way to sort that out is though competitive jurisdictional diversity.
-
-
Replying to @thomasmurphy__ @adornofthagn
Keep asserting the independence of environmental variables. Maybe your antagonist will defer to the approved dogma eventually.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.