Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- From: Timbo <timbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:40:55 +0100
Robert Henderson wrote:
In message <fb8igd$bv6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Timbo <timbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writesRobert Henderson wrote:In message <fb5ttr$9mv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Timbo <timbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writesYe Gods, don't try to deal with material which is beyond you. The point is there is no control by definition when studying animals in the wild. The complaint is that she altered their natural behaviour. RHAh, so their natural behaviour is to be numbered then, is it? I think this comment demonstrates that you don't fully understand the purpose of controls.
All they are complaining about there is that she interfered with their natural behaviour. Nothing to do with controls. RH
How did she alter their natural behaviour by naming them instead of numbering them? In what would they have behaved naturally if she gave them a number?
Giving them names might have affected her judgement in recording what they did through anthropomorphising the context. RH
Exactly! Thereby *controlling* that variable in the measurement.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- References:
- Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- From: Robert Henderson
- Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- Prev by Date: Re: England Test cricket sides by decades
- Next by Date: Re: Brass band day
- Previous by thread: Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- Next by thread: Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|