Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CPOSharky

You have obviously not read the scientific journals of peer reviewed articles demonstrating:

1. plant nodes being . . . essentially slightly microwaved
2. microfine iron dustings
3. super dried soil
4. seeds from within the circles sprouting differently
5. plants grown from seed within circles significantly more drought resistant.

within the AUTHENTICALLY STRANGE CIRCLES

and

NOT

within the circles obviously hoaxed—hoaxed with strings and boards and obviously very different damage to the plants; NO super dry soil etc.

and such NOT outside the authentic circles in the rest of the field.

It sounds like you are doing so many back flips to avoid a TYPE I ERROR that you are making it certain you will be bludgeoned by a TYPE II ERROR. That’s just inexorably the way that works.

You cannot be unreasonable about a TYPE I error risk without making it more or less certain—at least highly probable that you’ll experience the consequences of a TYPE II ERROR.


46 posted on 02/14/2009 8:12:02 AM PST by Quix (LEADRs SAY FRM 1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Quix

How do you know the slight microwaving of plant nodes, microfine iron dustings, super dried soil, etc. are really present? Have you observed these yourself? Probably not therefore you have to rely on the researcher’s word. There are inherently many problems with that. Peer review does not confer infallibility to a study’s findings. Global Warming research comes to mind. In fact many fields have “peer reviewed” journals that are held in low regard due to known lapses in peer review integrity. Then there are just honest mistakes discovered as we learn more about a particular topic. The field of Medicine for instance is frequently forced to rewrite the books as new knowledge alters what we thought we knew based on peer reviewed studies.

Has it been determined that those findings are truly different and unnatural and not what might occur on either end of a spectrum of naturally occuring conditions?

I’m not picking with you and not trying to get under your skin. I haven’t made up my mind about the topic but would put more faith in the research if it was pursued by larger numbers instead of the usual suspects.


77 posted on 02/15/2009 12:13:57 PM PST by Round 9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson