On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:23:04 +0000, Colonel Bloomer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:20:58 +0000, Mike Humberston
wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Whereas I, who am I suspect as pleased as you are that some research is
being carried out, remain open-minded :-)

I am certainly pleased that such research is now being performed.
Scepticism does not imply lack of an open mind. In my case it is
simply that I like to see solid evidence for claims which are
made. As I said "scepticism is the proper attitude for a
scientist"; this is a very well established principle in the
scientific world.

I'm also very aware that establishing correlations in the natural
world is very difficult. It is too easy to draw the conclusion
that because variables A & B appear to be correlated then A's
variation must be the result of B's variation when, in fact they
are both being caused by the variation of variable C (which your
study didn't even measure). Ph.D. thesises tend to be like
individual brush strokes in a painting. Each one is a step in
deriving the overall picture but as the work progresses many of
then are covered by further paint as the overall structure of the
picture becomes clearer.


Then you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding their
own job-protecting bodies projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras to consider, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

And now we'll try that in English!

Then, you have CONfiguration of unelected bodies, good at finding
their own job-protecting projects, and sustaining their particular
mantras, meanwhile the real painting never gets finished
because someone never wants the paint to dry, not whilst there's a few
bob to be had!

The RSPB have supposedly been looking at sparrow decline for 15 years,
still we know nothing. How strange!