NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations

[Sirloin]

wow look at the couple that came back to drag everyone down into aimless squabbles and drag us back into the past, get us looking away as they sign away our futures, and children's futures.

They DO NOT care about your future ability to hunt and have access to this province. They do not care about your children's ability to hunt and have access to this province.

There are people here to disrupt our ability to speak about the FUTURE of our country rationally and prevent our ability to unite and organize.

its obvious.

[Livewire322]

You certainly haven't looked at any of the studies that I have posted many of which do contain data.
The vast majority of research conducted on humans cannot be blind or double blinds due to the ethical concerns of providing or not providing adequate treatment would entail. That's why you need to use more sophisticated statistical modelling when doing studies like that. But to negate the research that is conducted because it doesn't meet what you believe is essential in all studies is a silly argument akin to those that deny evolution or climate change.

What could be more unbiased and ethical than comparing diagnoses of the same patient before and after learning their race?
Statistics - “torture numbers and they’ll confess anything”
I didn’t say that all studies require what I outlined, if I did feel free to quote it. However, my dismissing overly complicated statistical models is the opposite of silly, it’s logical.

As as an academic you should know that peer reviewers often nitpick methods and that’s all I’m doing. There’s no need to lump me in with climate change or evolution deniers because you don’t agree with me.

[jassmine]

Statistics - “torture numbers and they’ll confess anything”
I didn’t say that all studies require what I outlined, if I did feel free to quote it. However my, dismissing overly complicated statistical models is the opposite of silly, it’s logical.
As as an academic you should know that peer reviewers often nitpick methods and that’s all I’m doing. There’s no need to lump me in with climate change or evolution deniers because you don’t agree with me.

You haven't nitpicked anything, because you haven't presented or critiqued any particular study or method. You are just making generalized statements. The exact opposite of what reviewers do.

I was lumping your criticism with other groups because it is the same exact argument that those other groups use: Statistics are bad (as you state it results in numbers representing anything after they are tortured, and that dismissing complicated models is logical.) therefore should not be trusted. Again that's something reviewers don't do. They highlight areas of the model that they believe are incorrect. They don't just proclaim statistics to be the torturing of numbers, or look at a model and say it's too complicated so must not be accurate.

I have no idea about your opinions regarding those other subjects but you are using the same rhetorical techniques to dismiss findings in academic literature.

[Livewire322]

You haven't nitpicked anything, because you haven't presented or critiqued any particular study or method. You are just making generalized statements. The exact opposite of what reviewers do.

I was lumping your criticism with other groups because it is the same exact argument that those other groups use: Statistics are bad (as you state it results in numbers representing anything after they are tortured, and that dismissing complicated models is logical.) therefore should not be trusted. Again that's something reviewers don't do. They highlight areas of the model that they believe are incorrect. They don't just proclaim statistics to be the torturing of numbers, or look at a model and say it's too complicated so must not be accurate.

I have no idea about your opinions regarding those other subjects but you are using the same rhetorical techniques to dismiss findings in academic literature.

Did you ever consider that I am highlighting the whole model as an area that I believe is incorrect. When defending the articles that you posted you held them up as an example of “more sophisticated statistical modeling” and I’m saying that simple statistics would suffice.
There is a huge difference between dismissing dinosaur bones as evidence of evolution, [CO2] in ice cores to support anthropogenic climate change and dismissing statistical models from the likes of “Canadian Woman Studies” and “Ethnicity and Health”

[jassmine]

Did you ever consider that I am highlighting the whole model as an area that I believe is incorrect.

Again similar to what people who don't believe in evolution, climate change or statistics believe and state as a defense for their non-belief in a phenomenon.
But i would agree, that modelling in climate science and phylogenetics is much further along than most health sciences.

[Livewire322]

Again similar to what people who don't believe in evolution, climate change or statistics believe and state as a defense for their non-belief in a phenomenon.
But i would agree, that modelling in climate science and phylogenetics is much further along than most health sciences.

I’ll agree with your sentiments about phylogeny models and reserve my debate about the accuracy of climate models.
Your continued trend of highlighting a single potion of my posts is very similar to anti-vaxxers picking and choosing what to talk about.

[jassmine]

And your continued trend of highlighting a single potion of my posts is very similar to anti-vaxxers picking and choosing what to talk about.

Ok what did I misquote or take out of context that would negate the criticism of me saying that you saying the "whole model is incorrect" is akin to those who deny the science of evolution or climate change?

[Sirloin]

^ ok great....So is this really helping us in understanding our current situation at hand? is this really helping us organize and address this situation to make sure we have continued access and hunting for ourselves, our children and future generations?They are here to derail and throw a wrench into us making any meaningful progress. they. do. not. care. about hunting rights.

STOP helping them derail our efforts.

[jassmine]

When defending the articles that you posted you held them up as an example of “more sophisticated statistical modeling” and I’m saying that simple statistics would suffice.

What simple statistics would you use, when you don't have control groups or defined treatments and have multiple covariates and an array of different random and fixed effects?

[jassmine]

STOP helping them derail our efforts.

Yes we already know that you are not interested in accuracy in facts or statements, and would prefer conversations to not be based in reality.

You do know six out of nine judges on the Supreme Court were nominated by Stephen Harper right?

^^^^^^^

I wouldn't engage with this.
.....
As far as I can tell, lots in this second category are here to drag you down into meaningless squabbles, sow division and pull your eye off the target. Keep your eye's on the target, and the thread on track.

The fact that you think that pointing out that the "liberal" judges another poster commented about were actually nominated by Stephen Harper and not liberals, is meaningless demonstrates that you're nto really interested in discussing the topic of the thread but in promoting one type of "idea".