Chalkie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:23 am
I think one or two very left-brained types are indeed trying to blind us with "science" and hifallalutin-sounding ai intellectualism, kind of cerebral peaccocking.
I have spotted one or two inconsistencies here. The main antagonist of what was not intended to be a contentious thread is jnk.
jnk at 3.20 pm on 11 June: "But I also have not read any studies, myself, that would make me think the perceptions of the freshness of air is anything approaching a basic factor in sleep-disordered breathing£.
At 2.01 pm on 13 June I post a link to a study suggesting a link between air quality and sleep-disordered breathing.
At 2.31 pm - just 30 minutes later, jnk fires back with:
"I believe that is possible to claim to "link" any two variables when you use your own biases to tweak your own linear regression models, as it appears to me they did. A model that is built out of reframing the models of yet other models is so far removed from reality as to be practically meaningless as "science," in my opinion. But hey, one must get one's funding from somewhere based on something, I guess--so more power to them."
So do you mean to tell us that in half an hour you read and more importantly assimilated the models it is based on, and had time to type out a reply? Or is, as I suspect, that you simply dismissed it out of hand with a generalisation about scientific methodology because the study contradicted you point of view?
Funnily enough, the studies that support your point of view are sound science. Hmmm.
Now you are telling us it's better to have your body cut to bits to lose weight than doing it naturally, all based on a totally scientifically credible study, of course.
What's your background, professionally and educationally, may I ask?
