Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 22 of 22rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you do the statistical analysis correctly, birdie, a sample size of about 3 is enough to base conclusions on. 38 is low, and the resulting conclusions shouldn't be taken as concrete, but if the sample is chosen well and you don't screw up the stats then it is enough. I'm surprised that you're not aware of this point, as it's typical of statistical methods that small sample sizes are enough if chosen well.

Pseudoscience? I don't understand why you think that so readily -- it should be pretty obvious that the brain is the centre for various patterns of thought and decision-making. It's also largely accepted by now that various parts of the brain have particular primary roles, so I don't see why it's pseudoscientific that one might have a particular role in ideology.

I'm afraid you've reached a prejudiced decision based on a) not even reading the paper you are rubbishing, and b) a poor representation of the research by the Telegraph. I'm not saying the paper is correct, but I think it is offering up an interesting line of research, at least as interesting as most other psychological work.
Drugs, electricity, magnetism, radiation, or even a two pound hammer would all affect the brain function.

21 to 22 of 22rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Good News For Atheist-Scientists

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.