[Pallas- Saturn discussion] on:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrologyncgr/
> You've just written 6 totally unnecessary critical responses to a
> simple list of data that I posted for members on this group
> participating in a discussion about having a Pallas-Saturn aspect.
> The list of data was for anyone interested in that particular
> discussion.
> The list made no claims, and it certainly wasn't presented as a
> research project. Research needs to first have an hypothesis.
> No hypothesis was proposed. Lady X made an initial statement
> that she assigns the Pallas-Saturn conjunction to "pattern
> recognition." Others confirmed and responded with other aspects
> and personal examples of Pallas-Saturn. You have made statements
> at how you believe the delineation of Pallas-Saturn was
> fabricated,
> that asteroids don't interest you and that you don't use them. So,
> why are you now repeatedly criticizing a simple list of limited,
> well-defined data about something that doesn't interest you as
> though
> it were some research that held great im****tance to you? Most of
> the
> arguments that you're throwing at us are statements that I firmly
> believe and that were properly addressed in context of my data,
> which was not a research project.
>
> To address your points about research:
>
> Yes - having an initial hypothesis is following the Scientific
> Method
>
> Yes - sample size is critical
>
> Yes - accurate data is critical
>
> Yes - using a minimum number of viable and representative control
> groups is required
>
> Yes - a single planetary aspect cannot be the sole factor
>
> Yes - accurate models are made of hundreds of single aspects and
> other astrological events that all have a high, pre-determined,
> greater-than-chance statistical benchmark of occurring.
>
> Yes - findings must be able to be duplicated by other competent
> researchers
>
> However:
>
> No -- p value is not the one and only way of describing statistical
> results.
> As you well know, you've brought up this argument before, and there
> was a thorough and detailed discussion. If you wish to refresh
> your memory, please go back to messages #2277 and #2279 in
> our archives and review the information.
>
> No -- Jigsaw is not the ultimate, one-and-only research tool. For
> what it does, it's good. However, it does not have Artificial
> Intelligence; it is limited in both flexibility and the types of
> events
> that it can process; and, it hasn't really grown very much over
> the
> 10+ years since it first hit the market. Its developer has not
> been
> putting consistent energy into developing standard research tools
> for quite some time.
>
> -Peter
RM: Gotcha Pete. I can take a hint. "Don't promote any research
software that is better than Alphee's flakey system on any
National GeoCosmic Research website.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrologyncgr/
Ray
>
> Postings must be civil and avoid any characterization.
> Advertisement prohibited.
>
> http://www.geocosmic.org/
> National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR)
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrologyncgr/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrologyncgr/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:astrologyncgr-digest@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailto:astrologyncgr-fullfeatured@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> astrologyncgr-unsubscribe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
|
