I'm not a hot shot scientist, but I've authored peer-reviewed science and read and taught plenty of it for 40+ years. There's always bias as science and even quality evaluation are human endeavors. I'm not questioning your data. I want to see Stephen's WA8LMF's data as do you. However, by writing what you did--what you expect to see in his yet to be collected data--you have shared not only your own likely confirmation bias, but you have set the stage for every reader of your message to bring your bias to their individual interpretation of the data when it's presented along with results and conclusions derived therefrom. Better data scientists and authoritative scientific journal editors than I have demonstrated this to be the case. I have no problem with you celebrating your results.? Predicting another's results based on your results sets the stage for confirmation bias among viewers and interpreters of the subsequent results and is generally avoided unless explicitly part of the null hypothesis statement of a randomized trial--not what is happening here. Regards to you, Michael, and the list. 73 de K3FZT / Steve -- Steve Davidson K3FZT | GMRS: WRVS468Winlink Gateway K3FZT-10@...?direct or via W3EOC-3 Supporting VARA FM Wide/1200bd Packet WIRES-X Room #85218 "MARC-DARBY" 444.050 mHz K3FZT@...?FN20ja On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 10:21?AM Michael - NA7Q via <mike.ph4=[email protected]> wrote:
--
73 de K3FZT / Steve |