[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I'd like to apologize to the list and to Martin Braun for my
part in escalating our recent discussion into a personal
exchange.  In trying to figure out how things could have gone
wrong in his study, I made conjectures, counting on the the "ifs"
to make clear that they were conjectures. I treated it as a case
study, forgetting that a human being was behind it.  That wasn't
considerate of me.

I wished to make the point that there is always a non-zero
probability that a statistically significant result arose by
chance, and that it is raised beyond p values by the very nature
of scientific inquiry, by which we actively search for several
things in several places, thus raising the likelihood of finding
something.  I did NOT mean intentional manipulation.

I started out trying to nail a fact, and got carried away in a
spiral of argument that went further than I intended.  Sorry for
kicking up a fuss.


P.S.  I'm not an opponent of the claims themselves, rather agnostic.  I
find them attractive and I'd be delighted to learn that they are true (I'd
seize any opportunity to contribute to prove it).  Precisely because the
appeal of an idea can be very strong, skepticism is important when
evaluating the evidence.  The more skepticism has been applied, the easier
it is to believe a result.  Of course one must be careful in expressing it.

Alain de Cheveigne'
CNRS/IRCAM, 1 place Stravinsky, 75004, Paris.
phone: +33 1 44784846, fax: 44781540, email: cheveign@ircam.fr