John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by jneutron

To which?

As far as I can recall, I've posted at length on this forum on all dat stuff. If you have any specific questions, ask away.

If you prefer PM, that's ok as well. I assume you're in the business. I've give freely what I know.

I mean the link to the complete phrase where I asked you if you lied or not.

[SY]

Originally Posted by simon7000

I thought that was an inverse correlation.

No, it's a direct correlation, and for the same reason as arm length.

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by KBK

For if one does not step out of a paradigm, one will not know if the systems in use or enacted ---are a failure point or not.

You have failed to ascertain one of the primary goals of a higher education.

"the steps necessary to invoke a paridigm shift"

Hence the study of Popper, Kuhn et al..as well as scientific methodology.

Where's that link on the aluminum-alzheimers connection you were asked for?

j

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Wavebourn

I mean the link to the complete phrase where I asked you if you lied or not.

Oh, sorry.

Doesn't your screen show the boxed arrow thingies next to your name?

On my screen, it says ""origionally posted by Wavebourn" ">"
Click on the box and it immediately goes to the cited post.

j

[jan.didden]

Originally Posted by SY

No, it's a direct correlation, and for the same reason as arm length.

Please educate us

[simon7000]

Originally Posted by SY

No, it's a direct correlation, and for the same reason as arm length.

Ok and where you find clusters of churches you also find clusters of murders.

Now there is an interesting correlation between basketball players and a good grasp of three dimensional problem solving.

But I did send you to the text on phrenology, are you adding support to it? (I forget are we deficient because we are round headed or the other way around ! )

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by jneutron

Oh, sorry.

Doesn't your screen show the boxed arrow thingies next to your name?

On my screen, it says ""origionally posted by Wavebourn" ">"
Click on the box and it immediately goes to the cited post.

Ah, thanks. It works.
But I still am pretty sure that you even did not consider to review that data seriously because you a-priori "know that it is wrong because it can't be right".

[iko]

All, please make an effort to not concentrate on personal issues. Thank you.

[SY]

Originally Posted by janneman

Please educate us

A case of the un-mentioned variable. Consider a 2 year old, a 6 year old, a 10 year old, and an adult...

Here's another perfect example: Teen moms and recessions

[jneutron]

Originally Posted by Wavebourn

Ah, thanks. It works.
But I still am pretty sure that you even did not consider to review that data seriously because you a-priori "know that it is wrong because it can't be right".

Well then you are incorrect.. Shame on you.

I was unable to link to what you provided, for reasons I do not know. You assumed I didn't want to. But that's ok, our miscommunication is pretty much understood now, so I hope that moderator guy don't mind..

I have read some of his stuff in the past, and came away rather, shall we say, "disenchanted" with his methodology.

Should I have suspected that despite the level of his previous work, he suddenly attacked an issue with scientific rigor??

j

ps Wavebourn..when you say data, do you mean the raw data, or are you referring to the results of an analysis where the methodology behind it is hidden? Most of the time, that stuff is released more in the pop culture vein, with no mathematical meat to it. You know, written to tweak the public's interest rather than being rigorous in presentation.