Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barbaro said:
You knew that if authors set up the videotape of subjects, they are required to report information based on a video analysis. If authors did this, it should be reported in the study. They already have analyzed parents' interviews, which is a part of the study, so they could provide the data based on that.

I hope you've done thesis reports during your college days.
Click to expand...
This was a clinical study and of the clinical studies I've seen they have been recorded to enable the researchers the ability to go back and check the particular respondents participation or answers given if questions arise. So are you saying they lied and didn't report their findings accurately?

Yes, I did, but that was a long time ago.
 
AmputeeOT said:
Not at all. I am saying:

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.

Maybe my English was not clear. Perhaps this is better:

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn by the authors of this study from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.
Click to expand...
No it's not conjecture because they have a study backing up their claims. All your saying is they came to the wrong conclusions and that is your opinion and unless you have the right credentials (degree) that's all it is.
 
seb said:
No it's not conjecture because they have a study backing up their claims. All your saying is they came to the wrong conclusions and that is your opinion and unless you have the right credentials (degree) that's all it is.
Click to expand...

We are in luck then!

It just so happens that I have a doctoral research degree in medicine. I have published 4 research papers based on my original human subjects research.

I am, in fact, a research scientist.

The authors of this study are drawing conclusions based on correlational data when if they properly analyzed their data they can merely state that there are correlations in their data, but cannot make any causative claims.

They are making causitive claims based on a mere correlation. That is why they are coming to a possibly wrong conclusion. It could be right. It could be wrong. But their data do not support their claims.

They have not proved causation.

I don't even have to have an advanced degree in research to make this point. But it so happens that I do have such a degree.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Their data merely show a correlation.

It does not show causation.
 
Last edited:
I read this yesterday! I meant to post it here but I forgot. Whoops.
 
AmputeeOT said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Perhaps it might be of some assistance if you did some light reading on this subject.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure many studies could fall under this and many were conducted by people who had medical research degrees. How many times in your life has the medical community released a study that was found to be not true or just completely wrong after several years? I can't even count the number of times it's happened in my lifetime. And these are double blind studies where they supposedly followed all the rules. That is why peer review is important.

For me this study was pretty much common sense. Since babies who are born with the ability to hear are bombarded with sound even before they are born and continue to be once out in the world, they are constantly getting information as to what sound goes with what and what someone is saying to them means. With children who are born deaf, they have already lost any sounds up to the point they receive a CI and are activated. Once activated they begin to receive the environmental sounds that go on around them, but if you hold back on the vocal sounds or limit them, such as signing when you could be talking to them, then they will be deprived of the chance to put more sounds or words into their memory.
 
AmputeeOT said:
I read this yesterday! I meant to post it here but I forgot. Whoops.
Click to expand...
I would say this is pretty much biased when you consider the source. It's kinda like having the NRA come out and say some guns or high capacity magazines are bad.
 
seb said:
I'm pretty sure many studies could fall under this and many were conducted by people who had medical research degrees. How many times in your life has the medical community released a study that was found to be not true or just completely wrong after several years? I can't even count the number of times it's happened in my lifetime. And these are double blind studies where they supposedly followed all the rules. That is why peer review is important.
Click to expand...

Yes, many studies could fall under the umbrella of assuming causation when there is only a correlation. It's a mark of a poorly done study when that occurs. Yet poorly done studies still get published all the time.

Case in point: the study under current discussion.
 
AmputeeOT said:
Yes, many studies could fall under the umbrella of assuming causation when there is only a correlation. It's a mark of a poorly done study when that occurs. Yet poorly done studies still get published all the time.

Case in point: the study under current discussion.
Click to expand...

My husband is a scientific author like you. He would say the same thing- correction does not imply causation. He is a research engineer. He read many studies over the time and caught plagiarism that should be discovered years ago. He reported a fraud. Plagiarism is so out of control.

Of course, there are plenty of errors he discovered in the studies, books and textbooks and informed authors.
 
No one is going to win this argument/debate. It boils down to all sides "cherry picking" data to fit their needs. Paid, self, professional, neutral or independent studies. All studies or whatchamacallits are the same. Cherry picked.
 
cherry picked and biased.

the study itself and responses could be considered cherry picked and biased but I'd rather believe the side who have had personal experience AND research experience with the subject matter more than the side who doesn't necessarily do.

Like I said round and round we go. We can dither til the earth blows up but doubtful anyone will change their minds- most of all the more prolific posters in this thread. Even if there is later research disproving the previous research because they'd disclaim THAT research!
 
DeafDucky said:
cherry picked and biased.

the study itself and responses could be considered cherry picked and biased but I'd rather believe the side who have had personal experience AND research experience with the subject matter more than the side who doesn't necessarily do.

Like I said round and round we go. We can dither til the earth blows up but doubtful anyone will change their minds- most of all the more prolific posters in this thread. Even if there is later research disproving the previous research because they'd disclaim THAT research!
Click to expand...
What happens if further studies confirm the findings of this one? The only way you will get consensus is to have independent researchers conduct the study because the two current camps don't trust each other or their findings.
 
DeafDucky said:
cherry picked and biased.

the study itself and responses could be considered cherry picked and biased but I'd rather believe the side who have had personal experience AND research experience with the subject matter more than the side who doesn't necessarily do.

Like I said round and round we go. We can dither til the earth blows up but doubtful anyone will change their minds- most of all the more prolific posters in this thread. Even if there is later research disproving the previous research because they'd disclaim THAT research!
Click to expand...
Still awaiting peer reviews agreeing I can change mine. ;)
 
AmputeeOT said:
We are in luck then!



CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Click to expand...

You gave me such a nerd boner with this. I'm not a research scientist, but my degree is in a physical sciences field. Biology, Chemistry, and Nuclear Physics requirements for my field. I wish more people understood the scientific process and data analysis.
 
Beowulf said:
Still awaiting peer reviews agreeing I can change mine. ;)
Click to expand...
Since you are going to need to follow these kids for about 10-12 years, you're going to be waiting for awhile.
 
Lysander said:
You gave me such a nerd boner with this. I'm not a research scientist, but my degree is in a physical sciences field. Biology, Chemistry, and Nuclear Physics requirements for my field. I wish more people understood the scientific process and data analysis.
Click to expand...

Nerd boner!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top