[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: FYI -- bye-bye, 3/4?

> Some people disagree with this, too, and for seemingly good
> reasons.


 The reason I post is this; apparently the "good reasons" part went
 over my head, as did the part about what exactly "they" don't agree

I'm not criticizing you for posting the ScienceDaily story! :-) I'm trying to _add_ to the discussion _about_ it.

 I infer that Dodds' method was throw as much peer-reviewed data as
 was available on a scatter-plot and find the slope, which was 2/3,
 and then advance a hypothesis about underlying mechanical causes.

 What is the objection?

Read the blog comment I linked to (see above), and the Nature paper the comment links to. Strangely, the Nature paper is freely accessible.