Hi Fil,
let’s see if we can tease this out a little. You are saying that statistical analysis of a dataset, applied properly, produces the most robust results, and this is the best we’ve got.
Can you say a little more about how the proper application of data collection and analytical methods is decided by us=humanity? In other words, who decided, when and where was this decided, what were the options considered, in what context and under what limitations/conditions did this decision take place? And then can you say a little about how this can be seen as being objective?
cheers, teena
> On 4 Jan 2016, at 10:07 am, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|