3 ms·
The reasons were in my post: He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in
by QuantumChaos 12y ago
The reasons were in my post:
He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in my comment.
And he makes reference to nature vs nurture, which is completely irrelevant to the actual issue, and only makes sense in the context of a political apology.
- hyperpape 12y agoThe whole "our statisticians didn't find my claims supported by the evidence" didn't seem relevant?
- QuantumChaos 12y agowhere does he say that specifically? He refers to statisticians helping to do further analysis on the data, but I don't see where they showed that the main claim (that the test is predictive of success in the course) is refuted by statisticians.