On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:38:08 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <
[email protected]> wrote:
Dave wrote:
You have just given an example of "anecdotal
evidence". If you're
really a PhD chemist, you understand why your
example is insignificant.
First of all, I am a Ph.D. Biochemist, whose
concentration was analytical chemistry.
That's great. I work with one. He went to I.T. because biochem
was a ...limited... field.
Second of all, you should leave the analysis of
scientific findings to the professionals before you
hurt yourself.
Perhaps you don't understand. You provided, as a "cite", the statement
that your bathroom sink seems OK and therefore shaving cream
is safe for all tombstones. That's not only nearly irrelevant,
but you're using one example, with one type of stone (if it's
stone, you keep not answering that), with a different mechanism
of rinsing, surface treatment, and pretty much everything else.
You are seemingly oblivious to the true
meaning of "anecdotal". The term "anecdotal", as
applied to scientific findings refers to a casual
observation that is UNCONTROLLED (viz., there is no
control group).
Where is your control group? "My sink is fine".
But as I so clearly pointed out some
time ago, I *do* have a control group. Therefore,
there is nothing anecdotal about it.
You have a sample of one.
What it is, is a small sample size. If you want to
criticize it on the grounds that the sample size is
small, then at least it would be a valid criticism.
However, I would point out that my sample size of 1
(n=1 per group)
Yes, thank you Doctor Arrogant, I understand statistics. You
know, I've met dozens of PhD's over the years. Exactly two of
them aren't arrogant pricks, with their knowledge isolated
to just their narrow field of study, and with few execptions,
they're unable to communicate effectively.
You aren't one of the exceptions.
is STILL larger than the sample size
opposite, where group size n=0.
Please learn the usage of common terminology if you
are going to use it as part of your argument.
If you want to pretend "my sink is OK" is a valid study, go
ahead. I reject your claim.
What kind of tombstone does it think it is, Brock
Way?
Dave, you wrote some time ago:
"Yet you seem to claim that a garden statue is
significantly different than all types of tombstones.
Interesting theory. How does the rock know it's a
statue rather than a tombstone, I wonder?"
The sink thinks the same way your statue does.
According to your theory, if my sink could be
convinced that it was a garden statue, then it would
crumble under the insult of that most dangerous of
materials....shaving cream. Funny how your argument
only works when you use it, but when it is turned on
you, it is "silly".
The point you missed, is this: what kind of stone is your
sink? Are _all_ tombstones made of that type of stone?
(obviously not). Therefore, even if your single sample in
different conditions _was_ valid for that one type of stone,
it's not relevant to dissimilar stones. Clearer now, Doc?
And tell me
again how "a quick rinse" is going to clean shaving
cream out of the
porous surface of, say, a 150 year old sandstone
stone. Show your work.
Dude, how many times? The molecular diameter of water
is among the smallest molecular diameters in the
universe. Your notion that something relatively very
large can get into a pore, yet something very small
cannot get into the same pore is ridiculous.
You've never actually _looked_ at the surface of an old
tombstone, have you. We're not talking microscopic pores here.
If you had direct personal experience rather the typical
limited "well, in theory..." thinking that you're showing,
you'd know that.
Do I
really need to "show my work" on molecular diameters?
Would you like to assert that stearic acid (or
whatever) has a smaller diameter than water? If so,
then please go ahead and do that.
No, it's irrelevant.
Oh, and "a cite" doesn't mean "my bathroom sink".
Uh-huh, you haven't even done that well. I have
already asked you three times to support your argument
with something other than opinion, and three times you
have come up with not even an iota of evidence.
Therefore, I conclude that you don't have any.
You are the one claiming it's safe. You are the one who
has refused to back it up with anything more than saying
that it hasn't visibly harmed your bathroom sink. As
your bathroom sink is probably not marble, granite, _and_ sandstone,
I would argue that it's an insufficient model of the situation.
Again, ignoring surface preparation and environmental differences,
not to mention a different rinsing and (presumably) cleaning
schedule, make your "test" laughably irrelevant.
How specifically does your bathroom sink model a tombstone?
Better yet, why not admit that while your field of study may
be closely related, and you're guessing it should be OK,
that you just plain don't have anthing other than an educated
guess to say "It's probably OK based on my limited, nearly irrelevant
'experiment' in my bathroom". Because that's all you've got. Dude.
The Church