View Single Post
Old October 1, 2012, 09:57 PM   #117
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Quote:
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?

Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-

It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.

Wolberg excluded incomplete/inapplicable data that had no chance of providing the information that he needed by eliminating hits to bony tissues and wound tracks that left the bodies of his subjects.

Marshall and Sanow manipulated their outcomes to arrive at a desired conclusion, hence the highly suspect results and falisfied data uncovered in the statisitcal analysis here-

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04868 seconds with 7 queries