Saturday, October 09, 2010

A Reply to Jake

Hmmmm... For some reason I can’t seem to post to the Bloomington Alternative anymore; technical issues perhaps? However since Jake was kind enough to post one last time there. I would like to offer him an answer.

“We must appreciate that this issue is not just about science - far from.”

Oh, no arguments from me on that one.

“Which in this case is just fine.”

The logic of arbitrarily picking a point that looks like it fits your guess and then drawing your parameters around it is so circular my head spins trying to follow it. I heavily criticized the Geiers for doing just that in their correlative study on this issue.

“All the CDDS was good for was finding correlations anyway, not associations.”

Not even that. The CDDS has made is crystal clear that the changes between quarters are not to be considered new cases.

I think we have boiled down to a few points where it looks to me as if we are echoing what has already been said. I think it is time to introduce new arguments or go our separate ways.