And I’ve repeatedly told you that you should’ve focused your critique on this instead of ranting about deduction. The last time I said it, you claimed the following:
There is nothing statistically wrong with the paper.
Now to answer your question:
But I just don’t understand why you keep making confident assertions about a study you haven’t read,
I haven’t been discussing this study, I’ve been trying to help you understand why your critique of it has been misguided.
using a test you don’t understand.
As for this claim you undoubtedly have an interesting “proof” for, I’ve simply avoided confusing you further with a discussion of statistics until you realized the following:
All statistical conclusions are deductively wrong.
A statistical study must be critiqued for it’s misuse of statistics (and obviously, then you must first claim that there is something statistically wrong with the paper).
And I’ve repeatedly told you that you should’ve focused your critique on this instead of ranting about deduction. The last time I said it, you claimed the following:
Now to answer your question:
I haven’t been discussing this study, I’ve been trying to help you understand why your critique of it has been misguided.
As for this claim you undoubtedly have an interesting “proof” for, I’ve simply avoided confusing you further with a discussion of statistics until you realized the following:
All statistical conclusions are deductively wrong.
A statistical study must be critiqued for it’s misuse of statistics (and obviously, then you must first claim that there is something statistically wrong with the paper).