I'd like to see something that says "one study is NEVER enough". If that were so none of the mathematical proofs I ever did would have been enough and I would have hated econometrics.
Regardless I didn't say that things can't change and I didn't say that another study won't show different results if it uses different metrics. That's always a possibility. And it is also possible that mistakes were made and that if this study using the same metrics is rerun that you might get different results, but so far nothing and it hasn't been attacked or rejected like the some renewable energy source.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by kappaloo
I took several core Statistics courses (mostly math) and the one thing pounded into our head is that one study is NEVER enough. There is always too much risk of error. You take any controversial topic and you'll find studies that contradict eachother - even if the studies are reputable and well conducted.
I read this study - it seems very well done as I believe was published in a peer-reviewed journal (was it? I can't remember right now). But it's not everything. This study shows that Fox was the least biased, but for that statement to be a strong statement - more studies will need to be done.
There is no "magic" number - it's just true that more research would have to be done in the area to convince a lot of people - even those who might agree with the outcome from the get go. The more research that backs a topic the more conclusive the results.
-- also, don't take this as me "bashing" this study or trying to discredit it due to some "leftist" agenda I have. To be honest, I think Fox News is okay - it's the commentary shows I dislike.
|