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

To: MtnClimber
I am seeing this in the bear studies which are supposed to be "scientific". Assumptions and definitions are made which favor a particular outcome.

For example, if you define a "bear attack" as a human-bear conflict where a human is injured or killed, you eliminate all incidents where a bear attacked a human, but was stopped before the human was injured or killed.

This results in statistics which "show" human defenses against bears are far less effective than they actually are.

18 posted on 09/19/2024 5:34:47 AM PDT by marktwain (The Republic is at risk. Resistance to the Democratic Party is Resistance to Tyranny. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: marktwain

I see it in diet studies all the time. They will say a keto diet is no good, but define “Keto” as 45% carbs, and then say it doesn’t work. But “Keto” comes from ketosis, which implies a very low carb diet, maybe 10-15% carbs.

Or they will say “Red meat” is bad for you, but then define red meat as a burger, fries and Coke at McDonalds. Or “processed meat” as a pepperoni pizza and a coke. They can then conclude we all ought to eat plants only.

“Carrot Juice is Murder”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM


33 posted on 09/19/2024 9:32:53 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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