Teena,
I'm saying it's the best we've got (where we = 'humanity'). It's not
perfect, and we don't yet know how to apply it well to an arbitrary
circumstance. But if statistical analysis applies to a dataset, and if it's
applied properly, then its results are the most robust. At least till we
find something better.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
On 3 January 2016 at 17:53, Teena Clerke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Fil,
>
> Am I reading your asterisk incorrectly? You think ONLY statistics are
> ‘robust and reliable’? Can you say why? I am not referring to a court of
> law now, but research.
>
> cheers, teena
>
>
>
> >
> > Couple of things:
> > 1. It seems to me that the *only* way (that we know of currently) to
> ensure
> > that data (be it quantitative or qualitative, and regardless of how it
> was
> > collected/analyzed/etc) is robust and reliable is through appropriate
> > statistical analysis.
> > 2. First hand accounts are, perhaps, not as robust as one might wish they
> > were. See, for instance:
> >
> http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/end-eyewitness-testimonies-285414.html,
> > http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx, and
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|