From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/19/01-12:11:54 PM Z
Katherine,
My post agreed with you, not otherwise, as stated in its first sentence.
That last sentence summarized what I agreed with you about--that in these
processes failure to replicate a result in a different situation does *not*
invalidate the original report, much less discredit its author.
Specifically, Judy's finding that this particular test didn't work as
reported when she tried it does not prove that Scopick's report is wrong or
unfounded, but *only* that it didn't replicate when Judy tried it. We aren't
dealing with scientific tests and totally controlled variables here, and I
don't find it at all surprising that you and Dave both report useful results
from a test procedure even if Judy did not find it useful. ---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST