I think I owe you an apology. You have "analytics" in your tagline, & I'm thinking that that term means something different to you than me. I was assuming that I was talking to someone w/ advanced methodological expertise, & therefore I assumed intellectual dishonesty. /1
-
-
Replying to @ProfHayward @mloxton and
I'm starting to think you use "analytics" to refer to qualitative process assessment. If so, I apologize. In the past 15yrs, the work that Hofer & I did is settled science (no disagreement by people w/ expertise in Measurement science/theory & stats. /2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's a very odd apology. You are essentially saying that you are sorry for thinking I was dishonest, because now you think I am merely ignorant. Amazing I do both qualitative and quantitative work, and by analytics, I refer to the development and presentation of metrics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
OK, then I revoke my apology. You should be able to easily understand those papers. I apologize for my apology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yah, I get it, you are just a rude person. You haven't published anything that can replace the papers you criticize, and as far I can see, also have no advice on how to get better estimates. So rude and unhelpful. Not much value there
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do not enter an arena unless you have trained & are adequately skilled. If I engage w/ legal scholars, they have every right to call out for making confident statements that are clearly wrong. That is not rudeness, it would be me being appropriately put in my place. /1
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProfHayward @mloxton and
Your argument boils down to: MD: My plan suggests that cold fusion works if you do X, Y, & Z Physicist: That's dumb b/c of A, B & C, which are part of established physics MD: So how would you do cold fusion? Physicist: No1 knows how yet MD: So you are rude & unhelpful
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not even close, My Dude. Here is the argument. Unless a topic is in your direct area of expertise AND you have current research in that area, you should defer to what pops out the top of the peer review process as being the best guess. /2
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is NOT how science works. Lot's of useless research gets past peer-review (it has an IR reliability <0.15). Therefore, post-peer review critiques are a basic part of science. Markey ignores establish stats methods, & not U or he or any1 has defended agnst those critiques.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It’s also failed replication again and again when people have measured death rates due to preventible error. I’ve linked half a dozen papers showing this by now. Replication is critical to scientific validity. Subsequent measurements have landed between 2-8%, not 60.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yup. That's still too high, but no good purpose is served exaggerating.
-
-
Agreed. Exaggerating is actively harmful. If you wish to target a problem you benefit from precision in identifying and measuring it. Turning our measurement into crap makes it impossible to define, measure, and track improvement.
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How do you know it is too high?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.